Pascal's wager is not practical

[fhansen]

How that could be easy when you don’t know what God is? To me it is very difficult.

You can know what God is. As much as you need to know anyway

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

So, can you give some examples? What “not insignificant costs” of religions do you see?

For me, doing or not doing as I please is of great importance. The costs are mostly intangible

• Assenting to the Church on positions you disagree.
• lying to yourself and others through words or actions wrt the existence of God or the issues around the recitation of the Nicene Creed at al each week.
• basically trading freedoms for a dubious reward (from my pov).

The error is that you are compare costs in an absolute sense (“cost” x time) in which case an infinite time would yield infinite rewards. However, if this life is truly it then the costs of following a religion on disagrees with is basically the remainder of one’s life, all they have left.

If you think you have no hope of ever demonstrating that God does not exist (or, at least, that God’s existence is unlikely), why act as if God doesn’t exist?

That choice is silly from any point of view.

In a nutshell, God just isn’t believable to me. It is not a 50-50 chance. The possibility seems incredibly remote. The only reason I can’t definitively state non existence is that He is defined as beyond the material universe.

Attempting belief again offers me nothing good.

 

[MPat]

For me, doing or not doing as I please is of great importance. The costs are mostly intangible

That’s such a general answer that it is mostly useless.

Can you give some specific examples? For example, maybe you think that going to Church each Sunday is a “significant cost”?

• Assenting to the Church on positions you disagree.
• lying to yourself and others through words or actions wrt the existence of God or the issues around the recitation of the Nicene Creed at al each week.

So, two points out of three simply state that you can’t stay atheist while being a good Catholic. Well, sure. Then again, you can’t stay a Catholic while being a “good” atheist, so, presumably, those “costs” just cancel each other out.

basically trading freedoms for a dubious reward (from my pov).

So, again, what exactly are those “freedoms”?

The error is that you are compare costs in an absolute sense (“cost” x time) in which case an infinite time would yield infinite rewards. However, if this life is truly it then the costs of following a religion on disagrees with is basically the remainder of one’s life, all they have left.

And…? In that case “all they have left” is just not that much.

In a nutshell, God just isn’t believable to me. It is not a 50-50 chance. The possibility seems incredibly remote. The only reason I can’t definitively state non existence is that He is defined as beyond the material universe.

So, “just isn’t believable to me”, “seems”… That only refers to feelings.

Do you have any arguments that would make such an impression reasonable?

Or is it just a “Short-sighted Pascal’s Wager” which only considers “costs” and “rewards” in a very short term?

Just like the “reasoning” of a drunkard who drinks another glass of vodka, because it is pleasant in very short term - the hangover awaits tomorrow, but is “beyond the horizon” and is ignored.

For yes, becoming a Catholic can look unpleasant in very short term. As a Lithuanian saying goes, “Eyes of fear are big.” (“Baimės akys didelės.”)…

So, any arguments - or just unreasonable fear and “Short-sighted Pascal’s Wager”?

 

[rossum]

Even if there really was no good way to choose among religions, it would still be possible to choose randomly. That is still better than atheism.

Not necessarily. Given that some gods (or different versions of the same God) will punish people who worship other gods, then by not worshipping any gods at all you avoid that possibility.

An atheist does not hold any god above any other god; all gods are treated equally.

 

[rossum]

Any gambler or investor should take this bet in a heartbeat.

That might make things difficult. I have to attend the mosque on Fridays, the Synagogue on Saturdays and the Church on Sundays. Then I have to make time on Saturday to attend an SDA church as well. What day do Mormons hold their services, or maybe I can just join after I’ve died?

Anyone know a job with three-day weekends?

 

[tafan2]

Very well done. It goes a long way towards answering a common criticism of Pascal’s Wager. Not often that I see an original thought, pro or con, on the Wager. A pleasant surprise.

 

[MPat]

Not necessarily. Given that some gods (or different versions of the same God) will punish people who worship other gods, then by not worshipping any gods at all you avoid that possibility.

An atheist does not hold any god above any other god; all gods are treated equally.

And is that actually seen as better?

The fact that you “forgot” to give any examples does not give much hope for that…

That might make things difficult. I have to attend the mosque on Fridays, the Synagogue on Saturdays and the Church on Sundays. Then I have to make time on Saturday to attend an SDA church as well. What day do Mormons hold their services, or maybe I can just join after I’ve died?

Anyone know a job with three-day weekends?

Well, taking agnosticism seriously would require something like that.

Then again, no one takes agnosticism seriously.

What day do Mormons hold their services, or maybe I can just join after I’ve died?

That, by the way, indicates how Pascal’s Wager can be extended to handle multiple religions. Yes, such “tiebreakers” are not in favour of Mormonism.

 

[rossum]

And is that actually seen as better?

“You shall not have not other gods before me.” An atheist does that. A Hindu does not.

 

[goout]

goout:

Any gambler or investor should take this bet in a heartbeat.

That might make things difficult. I have to attend the mosque on Fridays, the Synagogue on Saturdays and the Church on Sundays. Then I have to make time on Saturday to attend an SDA church as well. What day do Mormons hold their services, or maybe I can just join after I’ve died?

Anyone know a job with three-day weekends?

I was talking about Paschal’s wager not comparative religious studies.

I have a dollar ($1).
A return is proposed to me: an infinite reward in exchange for the investment of the dollar.
And
If the infinite reward is not forthcoming I don’t lose the dollar. All I have to do is be open to the possibility of the infinite.

I have an infinite possibility at zero cost.

 

[MPat]

“You shall not have not other gods before me.” An atheist does that. A Hindu does not.

Have you tried to find out what counts as “other gods”?

As you might note, Catechism (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7E.HTM) points out: “2110 The first commandment forbids honoring gods other than the one Lord who has revealed himself to his people. It proscribes superstition and irreligion. Superstition in some sense represents a perverse excess of religion; irreligion is the vice contrary by defect to the virtue of religion.”. Atheism violates this commandment just as idolatry.

It also points out: “2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. […] Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc.”. Atheists who put pleasure, power, state, money etc. in God’s place aren’t exactly unheard of.

In fact, some atheists seem to stay atheists precisely to avoid giving up those “gods”.

 

[tafan2]

A Hindu does not have other God besides the God of Abraham?

 

[goout]

MPat:

Even if there really was no good way to choose among religions, it would still be possible to choose randomly. That is still better than atheism.

Not necessarily. Given that some gods (or different versions of the same God) will punish people who worship other gods, then by not worshipping any gods at all you avoid that possibility.

An atheist does not hold any god above any other god; all gods are treated equally.

You assume that if there is a God, God is bad.
If you assume that God is good, then…you have to change your thinking.

 

[STT]

You assume that if there is a God, God is bad.
If you assume that God is good, then…you have to change your thinking.

How could we be sure that God is not Evil? God is apparently neutral toward Good and Evill since It allows them both.

 

[MPat]

How could we be sure that God is not Evil? God is apparently neutral toward Good and Evill since It allows them both.

Let’s try the same argument elsewhere: “STT is apparently neutral toward good and bad spelling since he allows them both (“Evil” and “Evill”).”.

Does it work? No?

Have you considered why?

Let’s think: how would a post look if you really wouldn’t have cared about spelling? Would it have just one misspelled word? Would it have about half of words misspelled?

Wouldn’t you expect almost all (if not all) words to be misspelled in that case?

So, by analogy, shouldn’t the fact that you see both good and evil count as evidence that “someone” does prefer good?

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

For example, maybe you think that going to Church each Sunday is a “significant cost”?

Given that missing mass jeopardizes one’s salvation (as I understand it) until confession, that opened up the possibility of choosing the right religion but not successfully persevering to the end. The outcome would be the same as nonbelief.

So, two points out of three simply state that you can’t stay atheist while being a good Catholic. Well, sure.

It’s a not not problematic. One cannot simply accept what they view as false. Therefore the best they can do is go through the motions. So wouldn’t that make a “bad” Catholic in that they are lying by words and deeds? Unless you are really suggesting one can simply decide “I’m going to believe xyz”.

So, again, what exactly are those “freedoms”?

Some denominations forbid certain foods or associations with others. Some certain medical procedures. Others forbid various family planning methods, and a few actively demand large families. They range in severity but the concept is the same. Trade the ability to make your own choices for the promise of eternal rewards.

Do you have any arguments that would make such an impression reasonable?

We could rehash the various arguments but that’s turn into a huge amount of thread creep. “Just isn’t believable” includes a lot of prior thought on the topic.

For Pascal’s Wager to be viable one has to believe that both options are plausible and that other options outcomes so not exist.

 

[STT]

Let’s try the same argument elsewhere: “STT is apparently neutral toward good and bad spelling since he allows them both (“Evil” and “Evill”).”.

Does it work? No?

Have you considered why?

Let’s think: how would a post look if you really wouldn’t have cared about spelling? Would it have just one misspelled word? Would it have about half of words misspelled?

Wouldn’t you expect almost all (if not all) words to be misspelled in that case?

So, by analogy, shouldn’t the fact that you see both good and evil count as evidence that “someone” does prefer good?

Let me give you an example that makes Evil God feasble: Think of an Evil God for a second. He of course lies about who is real creator. So, how do we could possibly know the truth?

 

[MPat]

Given that missing mass jeopardizes one’s salvation (as I understand it) until confession, that opened up the possibility of choosing the right religion but not successfully persevering to the end. The outcome would be the same as nonbelief.

Yes, it would be stupid to be half-hearted. So, Pascal is likely to advise you not to be half-hearted.

It’s a not not problematic. One cannot simply accept what they view as false. Therefore the best they can do is go through the motions. So wouldn’t that make a “bad” Catholic in that they are lying by words and deeds? Unless you are really suggesting one can simply decide “I’m going to believe xyz”.

Well, almost - it takes a tiny bit more work. Pascal’s advise is simple: try to be honest with yourself, accept the Wager, follow the motions for a while (knowing that, while the feelings aren’t there yet, there is nothing irrational about that) - and you will discover that you actually do believe.

You seem to be making a couple of mistakes.

First, you seem to think that believing is a matter of feelings (of something you really can’t control directly). It is not. It is a matter of will. Catholicism does not care about feelings all that much.

Second mistake is related to you thinking Pascal’s Wager might be insulting to you. You seem to assume that the atheists beliefs are worth much. That they are reasonable, reached logically and honestly. And yes, we do not expect an atheist to be in position to think so about himself reasonably. And yes, we think it is very likely that those assumptions are false.

Not to mention that, first of all, Pascal’s Wager is meant for someone who already sees that he has no intellectual reason to prefer atheism.

Some denominations forbid certain foods

So, are you seriously offering that as an example of significant cost?!

OK, it looks like you have nothing here.

We could rehash the various arguments but that’s turn into a huge amount of thread creep.

Or you could link to relevant threads.

“Just isn’t believable” includes a lot of prior thought on the topic.

I find that pretty hard to believe.

Let me give you an example that makes Evil God feasble: Think of an Evil God for a second. He of course lies about who is real creator. So, how do we could possibly know the truth?

So, in what sense is that “Evil God” supposed to be “God”?

Have you just “rediscovered” devil under a different name?

 

[rossum]

A return is proposed to me: an infinite reward in exchange for the investment of the dollar.
And
If the infinite reward is not forthcoming I don’t lose the dollar.

Some Gods will punish anyone who worships other gods. You risk an infinite loss if you pick the wrong God. Have you ever watched Welcome to Hell? As the Devil (but you can call me Toby) says, “The Jews were right”.

 

[rossum]

A Hindu does not have other God besides the God of Abraham?

A Hindu has other gods before the God of Abraham. Atheists do not place any god before any other god.

 

[rossum]

You assume that if there is a God, God is bad.
If you assume that God is good, then…you have to change your thinking.

In Buddhist morality, the Bible God is bad. He kills far too many people, unborn babies included.