Gosh, there’s so much action on this thread now, I wonder if you’ll find my replies?
If the 19 are insufficient to compel belief, they may not necessarily be seen to be fallacious or flawed. The one examining the arguments may be genuinely agnostic about them: she may see how they could possibly be true or possibly be false.
Let me think about this. Remember, I’ve conceded the psychological point (and the psychology of desire, fear, hope and comfort are complex and tricky) - I was talking now about the arguments from a purely logical pov. Someone starting out from an atheistic, agnostic or ignorant worldview is presented with the 19 (which of course we are only using to stand for the bigger universe of rational arguments for God’s existence). Now let us suppose our sincere seeker is not convinced of the truth of the proposition after thinking about the arguments. The question is, speaking from a purely logical perspective, is there a meaningful sense in which she would not regard all of these arguments as flawed or fallacious in some way? Because if she concedes that just one of these arguments is logically correct then she must concede that its conclusion is true regardless of the merits of the rest of them. So, in the case that she doesn’t assent to any of them, PW logically stands on its own.
Ah, you say, but perhaps there are arguments she is agnostic about - perhaps she simply doesn’t understand them, or perhaps they are inductive and she simply cannot find what she regards as a reliable data set in support of them - in that case she doesn’t think that they necessarily flawed - she just doesn’t know whether they are good arguments or not. But look, these are no help to PW either - for how would you logically use an argument that you can neither believe to be correct nor flawed to help assent to another argument.
And there is another point - the 19 argue for one proposition; PW argues for something else, so where is the logical connection between them? In fact PW logically assumes an agnostic starting point - it is meant to compel the hearer to a course of action (a simulacrum of belief) independently of any real metaphysical belief. Since its starting point is agnostic, how does considering arguments the merit of which one is agnostic about help it?
In this case, I think PW is a good, practical argument for such a person. In my mind it is quite reasonable to move the mind to one of two opposite propositions if neither are compelling nor obviously fallacious, and if the one proposition offers a potential infinite gain and the other proposition offers nothing.
Well, we differ on the merit of PW for the reasons I have expressed before. On its own, PW is a poor argument for a variety of reasons including the fact that there are more possible outcomes than the argument allows - in fact it assumes a certain sort of theology which is unwarranted by the argument. By the way the choice is not between two opposite propositions but between assenting to or dissenting from a single proposition.
The arguments for God’s existence, according to the wager, neither compel the mind to assent or dissent. You are assuming that, if an argument does not compel the mind to assent, it is therefore seen by the mind as automatically fallacious, which I do not think follows. The arguments may be thought of as “maybe true, maybe false,” and genuine agnosticism may pervade one’s view.
Yes - see above.
I tend to agree. I’m not sure how possible it is to will to believe what the mind finds inherently faulty, though I do think it possible to bend the mind to assent to a proposition which does not compel or repel it.
Perhaps, and I’m discussing this with someone else - I need to think more about this. It’s certainly the case that it’s possible, indeed common, to be so attached to a proposition for emotional or psychological reasons that no argument is sufficient to change one’s mind, at least outwardly. Are people who hold to absurd ideas in the face of all evidence to the contrary sincere in thinking themselves rationally justified, or do they know somewhere in their minds that they are wrong? Can we will ourselves to beliefs or only the outward show of belief? Is PW an argument for belief or the simulacrum of belief?
Besides this point, I think that there are rational arguments that demonstrate the existence of God, and would appeal to them before the wager.
As would I, were I in your shoes.
The wager, I think, is much more practical and has more to do with one’s personal behavior, once one is already religious.
Now I don’t think I agree with that. If one is already religious, what need does one have to wage?. Dark night of the soul? But then PW would, I suppose, be a better argument than for agnostics, because its theological assumptions would already have assent.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
: No, it really is very rare that I have to wait more than a couple minutes in line. The DMV example I gave is the only case I can recall in the past several months. But this is peripheral to the discussion.
