Another view of "Pascal's Wager"

[IWantGod]

leprechauns.

What value do they give to existence? What understanding can i get of myself from a leprechaun? A leprechaun doesn’t explain why i feel the way i do, why i do what i do. It doesn’t add any point to anything. It’s like believing in aliens, their existence would be great but at most it is just a sensory pleasure. In the end they don’t actually change or give any value to the existential situation in which we find our selves; they are just another being among beings. So why would i have faith in them? It doesn’t explain the human condition. People are attracted to the faith because in some way shape or form what is being said makes sense of the human condition. God makes sense of their experiences as personal beings. That’s why they choose to have faith because it makes sense of what they are and what they are doing and as such is existentially necessary to their understanding of things. Otherwise there is no sense to any of it.

To compare God to a leprechaun is a joke.

 

[MPat]

MPat,

Look, I really don’t want to argue with you.

True.

Actually arguing, giving the answers, would make cognitive dissonance worse. And that is not pleasant. Thus you do not want that.

All I would like is for someone who thinks they can consciously choose to believe things to actually demonstrate their ability.

False.

If that was the real motivation, you would have shown at least some interest in me pointing out that I believe that P=NP because of something that has little to do with its truth (for we have no proof either way). And you have shown no interest whatsoever.

No, you want an excuse to keep believing that beliefs can’t be chosen.

That’s why you made a challenge that you know we won’t take, and ignored anything else.

rstrats:

I suggested the use of leprechauns because I assumed there wasn’t already a belief in them.

I think you used it as an insult.

IWantGod,

re: “I think you used it as an insult.”

How so?

Let’s check. Have you performed such an “experiment” yourself?

That is, is it true that you actually wanted to believe in leprechauns?

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

What value do they give to existence? What understanding can i get of myself from a leprechaun?

I think this is part of the impasse. It almost sounds as if part of why you believe in God involves the magnitude of the implications if He exist.

OTOH, a nonbeliever might want to establish existence of God and the implications of that as separate. It seems a bit odd to some of use to base the truth of a claim in large part on the value to us. Now how much you care if it is true based on value to you is another matter.

 

[IWantGod]

OTOH, a nonbeliever might want to establish existence of God and the implications of that as separate. It seems a bit odd to some of use to base the truth of a claim in large part on the value to us. Now how much you care if it is true based on value to you is another matter.

It’s value is in it’s explanatory power, it’s capacity to make sense of our personal experiences. God in some cases is presupposed because that idea makes sense of the human condition, while a purely materialistic explanation does not. It’s not so much a matter of proving the existence of God but rather it is the acknowledgment that faith in God is necessary in-order to understand why we feel the way we do and do the things that we do. If it’s a qeustion of why are we doing this, why are we creating more people, why are we surviving, why do i have emotional experiences, what is the point of it, then a purely materialistic explanation offers no answers beyond identifying physical processes. But God makes sense of those activities and o0ur emotional experiences, God makes it reasonable to do things as opposed to simply acting on impulses that just so happen to exist. It has explanatory value in regards to our personal nature. It makes sense of things.

It’s not just a matter of having rosey feelings.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias,
re: " Because belief is all about engaging our senses and our intellect, and coming to a conclusion in which we can believe."

So where does the choice come in?

It’s the choice to assent to a conclusion you can accept, based on the information before you. (See Newman’s “Essay In Aid Of A Grammar Of Assent” for a complete treatment of the notion.)

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

It’s not so much a matter of proving the existence of God but rather it is the acknowledgment that faith in God is necessary in-order to understand why we feel the way we do and do the things that we do

Got it, I think. The “why” questions are difficult and often lack an answer from the material world. My personal theory is that this is major difference in that “I don’t know and might never know” are acceptable answers to me. As such, belief becomes a solution to a problem I don’t have (or don’t perceive).

It’s not just a matter of having rosey feelings.

If that’s how my post sounded I apologize. Regardless of my views on faith I never intend to belittle or insult another’s sincerely held faith. It’s a given that faith is much deeper than “rosey feelings”.

 

[IWantGod]

Got it, I think. The “why” questions are difficult and often lack an answer from the material world.

The “why” qeustion cannot in principle be answered in a mechanistic or functional sense. Questions like “Why should we preserve the existence of humanity” is necessarily a philosophical qeustion that essentially only has two answers.

1. Because we desire it. (that is, we naturally find ourselves desiring that end)

or

1. Because we ought to. It’s something we should do. In other words it’'s a goal directive that we ought to follow in order to fulfill a purpose. And that only makes sense if we have been given a purpose by an intellect because the goal is inherently teleological in nature.

The first answer appears reasonable up until the point that you realize that you have not answered the qeustion of why we desire to act for the end of self-preservation. Why are we born with that desire. We know that a functional or mechanistic explanation only leads to a brute fact, and that is to say it just so happens that desires arise in particular kinds of biological organisms, but ultimately it doesn’t explain why they would exist at all as a potentiality or what rational sense it would make for us to act on them.

Which leaves us with only the second answer; God commands us. It’s a teleological answer and it is the only available explanation.

The atheist however does have an opportunity for agnosticism. They can simply say that we cannot say for sure that the “why qeustion” is a reasonable qeustion to begin with insofar as we may not have a good reason to ask why. However i would argue that the mere fact that we have a natural desire to preserve our existence and reproduce strongly implies goal direction or a purpose which justifiably causes us to ask why, and we know that to act on these desires only makes rational sense if we do it in service of an existential purpose. Otherwise we are just blindly acting on impulses for no rational reason.

So while you can certainly choose to be agnostic (as you say, God solves a problem i don’t perceive), the theist is not unreasonable in having faith, in fact they have a reasonable faith insofar as God being the only reasonable answer as opposed to a materialistic brute fact. It is apparent however that some people don’t value faith even if it’s reasonable.

Some might ask if your agnosticism is reasonable at least insofar as mere theism is concerned.

 

[laylow]

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

 

[MPat]

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

Nonsense.

At the very least, “Christian God”, “Jewish God”, probably also “Muslim God” are one and the same. Most other “gods” (Like Zeus or Thor) are simply not of the same kind (and are not in much of competition).

Not to mention that “atheists of every god [except]” is meaningless.

I think this is part of the impasse. It almost sounds as if part of why you believe in God involves the magnitude of the implications if He exist.

OTOH, a nonbeliever might want to establish existence of God and the implications of that as separate. It seems a bit odd to some of use to base the truth of a claim in large part on the value to us. Now how much you care if it is true based on value to you is another matter.

The point is that one can plausibly want to believe in God (yes, one can also plausibly want not to believe in God). But it doesn’t look plausible that one can want to believe in leprechauns. Why would one do that? What is the motive?

 

[laylow]

Nonsense.

At the very least, “Christian God”, “Jewish God”, probably also “Muslim God” are one and the same. Most other “gods” (Like Zeus or Thor) are simply not of the same kind (and are not in much of competition).

Not to mention that “atheists of every god [except]” is meaningless.

HerCrazierHalf:

I find human’s conception to understand a god (if one exists) as much more comical and potentially demeaning to any skywizard that may exist.

 

[laylow]

The point is that one can plausibly want to believe in God (yes, one can also plausibly want not to believe in God). But it doesn’t look plausible that one can want to believe in leprechauns. Why would one do that? What is the motive?

The leprechaun could be god? I don’t see why believing in a god is a motive anyway. Who says he/she/it cares what you believe?

 

[MPat]

I find human’s conception to understand a god (if one exists) as much more comical and potentially demeaning to any skywizard that may exist.

“Skywizard”?

Also, that assumes that God hasn’t actually revealed himself. After all, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons etc. all think that He has done so. And you haven’t offered anything to dispute that claim.

The leprechaun could be god?

Then it wouldn’t be much of a leprechaun.

I don’t see why believing in a god is a motive anyway.

Maybe it would be best if you would respond to what was actually said. I was not saying anything similar to “believing in a god is a motive”.

Who says he/she/it cares what you believe?

Um, we do?

And we also say that He also said so?

 

[Sophia]

You’re not asking “please demonstrate the use of your reason and the resulting belief”, are you? What you’re really asking is “please demonstrate that, contrary to your reason, you can make yourself believe something that you hold to be false.” That’s what the game is here, isn’t it?

Of course it is. Because that is exactly what many apologists assert, namely that belief is a volitional action, that one is able to choose what to believe, even if one finds it irrational. If you take time and review the thread, you will see that this is precisely what your brethren assert.

 

[laylow]

“Skywizard”?

Also, that assumes that God hasn’t actually revealed himself. After all, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons etc. all think that He has done so. And you haven’t offered anything to dispute that claim.

laylow:

The odds that after 198,000 years of human existence, god decided to intervene, in an illiterate, peasant part of the world, to impregnate a woman who never slept with anyone with the son of god, which no one (even himself) claimed to be until at least 30-40 years after his death, in which he was crucified on a cross and risen from the dead, would have to be so indescribably low that it would be easier to hit the power ball. Excuse me from being skeptical. I would think that god would want me to use my brain.

If I attempt the futile exercise of trying to understand god myself, I think of a being looking down on humanity on a group of people claiming that a human rose from the dead because he was the son of god and I think either he is laughing hysterically, or greatly disturbed to the point that they would be they would probably be amongst the first to be voted off the island. Especially when those people are mistreating other human beings due to passages in an old book. Shameful. Obviously not as bad a Muslin extremists, but there was a time when they were.

 

[laylow]

Maybe it would be best if you would respond to what was actually said. I was not saying anything similar to “believing in a god is a motive”.

Ok, it surely looked to me that believing is god was a motivation.

Um, we do?

And we also say that He also said so?

Yes, there in lies the problem.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

The point is that one can plausibly want to believe in God (yes, one can also plausibly want not to believe in God). But it doesn’t look plausible that one can want to believe in leprechauns. Why would one do that? What is the motive?

One can want to believe for other than spiritual or philosophical reasons. For example, I’m poor and a pot of gold is worth $1.3 million USD. Just believe and go to the end of the rainbow. Far fetched, yea.

More practically, when I was single I wanted to believe because lack of belief is a " deal breaker" to most women, especially one young lady I really had an interest in. But dispite my best efforts I could not nor could I commit to the faking it. I suspect most atheists/agnostics have wanted to believe at some point but just couldn’t.

Maybe social pressures, maybe more existential reasons, but in the end it seems tough to make yourself believe something.

 

[Gorgias]

If you take time and review the thread, you will see that this is precisely what your brethren assert.

Are “my brethren” not “your brethren”? What, exactly, do you think I’m asserting?

 

[Sophia]

Are “my brethren” not “your brethren”? What, exactly, do you think I’m asserting?

I feel no kinship to irrational people. This includes those who assert that one can volitionally choose “what to believe in”. It seemed to me that your post was ambiguous. On one hand you seemed to understand that one is unable to choose something that one finds irrational. On the other hand you seemed to accuse atheists/agnostics of committing a mistake (“red herring”), when they asked the proponents of this “choice” to demonstrate it by choosing to believe in a “leprechaun” (or anything that they find unbelievable). After all this is just another example to show that one can choose their beliefs. If I misinterpreted your words, I apologize. Would you be so kind to clarify? I would appreciate it.

 

[Gorgias]

I feel no kinship to irrational people. This includes those who assert that one can volitionally choose “what to believe in”.

It seemed to me that your post was ambiguous. On one hand you seemed to understand that one is unable to choose something that one finds irrational.

Would you be so kind to clarify? I would appreciate it.

Absolutely!

On one hand, I would assert that the very definition of belief includes a volitional choice.

On the other hand, this implies that any attempt to force a volitional choice against one’s will is absurd.

I choose to believe in Jesus because I find the arguments for His divine Sonship to be compelling. Therefore, I volitionally choose to accept these arguments.

Likewise, I choose to not believe in leprechauns, because I find the arguments for their existence ludicrous.

In each case, it is my choice – based on the workings of my intellect and will – that give rise to beliefs.

However, if the ‘game’ here is “well, if you choose what you believe, then please demonstrate how you might choose to believe in the FSM.” That’s an illogical request: one cannot choose what one rejects rationally, and still claim to be rational.

(If we really want to circle back to the topic at hand, we’ll see that Pascal’s wager attempts precisely what I’m describing: if a person wishes to be a believer, but is having a hard time choosing it, Pascal is providing a rational argument that might jump-start belief, as well as a process by which that belief might take root and grow.)

 

[Sophia]

On one hand, I would assert that the very definition of belief includes a volitional choice.

Then, I guess, we have a problem. The definition of belief is simple: “acceptance the veracity of a proposition”. And there is nothing about a volitional choice here. Just consider the process performed by toddlers. Their parents present a proposition, and the toddlers accept it as true, without examining it.

On the other hand, this implies that any attempt to force a volitional choice against one’s will is absurd.

Correct. But the logical conclusion is that your suggested definition of belief is incorrect. It is exactly what many apologists assert: “atheists choose not to believe in God, for some unspecified reason” (Maybe because they want to continue their sinful lifestyle ). You said that it is impossible for you to “choose” to believe in the existence of leprechauns, because you find the arguments for their existence unacceptable. In other words, you cannot choose to believe in the leprechauns. The same happens with the (explicit) atheists.

Now we need to examine how one reaches the conclusion that a proposition is correct.

I agree that one must be willing to examine the professed arguments. Without this volitional choice one cannot reach any conclusion. So there is a volitional aspect of this process. But when one examines the suggested evidence then a “non-volitional” step is taken. Your intellect examines the evidence, and either finds it compelling, or deficient. However, this process does not happen in the “conscious” part of the brain (grey cells), rather it happens in the “subconscious” (white cells). Most of the information processing (thinking) happens in the subconscious. And a volitional decision making happens in conscious. According to the studies about 95% of the brain activity happens in the subconscious.

If we really want to circle back to the topic at hand, we’ll see that Pascal’s wager attempts precisely what I’m describing: if a person wishes to be a believer, but is having a hard time choosing it, Pascal is providing a rational argument that might jump-start belief, as well as a process by which that belief might take root and grow.

That is correct. Pascal’s wager is a suggested method to start the conscious deliberation, but the final arbiter is not the conscious. Of course the suggested method is full of errors - not to mention that it is based upon wishful thinking. I will present a thorough examination of the wager in a follow up post. But first we need to come to an agreement about the question of “choice” in the matter of belief.

Fortunately we do have a partial agreement: we both accept that one is unable to choose to believe something that one finds incorrect.