Pascal's Wager

[Charlemagne_II]

Perhaps Christopher Hitchens at this point is giving Pascal’s Wager another look?

 

[Faithdancer]

I could tell you to believe in Tinkerbell. If you believe in Tinkerbell, after you die, you will be transported to Neverland. If you don’t believe, you will simply cease to be. Obviously, it is much safer to believe in Tinkerbell.

Problem is… why should you believe? Did I address any concerns you have?

No- The problem here is that the wager doesn’t give reasons why to believe, other than reward/punishment. It isn’t concerned with evidence, merely risk. It also assigns the same probabilities to each square on the board.

Suppose there is a [name of deity]. He will reward you for [action] after death. If you do not do [same action], then you are risking punishment!

You can fill in the blanks with whatever you wish. As already quoted by Truth Seeker,

“Suppose there is a god, but he is only going to reward those who have enough courage not to believe in him. This god is no less likely than Pascal’s. By Believing in a god, Christians are risking eternal torture! When they die, they will be very surprised.”

I’m curious why you keep bringing up “Tinkerbell,” a make believe cartoon character. You should remember where you are, and who you are talking to. Equating belief in Tinkerbell with belief in God only makes you sound sarcastic and disrespectful.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Pieman333272;8190469:

That being said, if you think you can actually make a form of the software which reads ancient language, analyzes it based on ancient style and rhetoric, takes scribes into account, and lacks bias, I advice sending it to a scholar somewhere.

Ouch, harsh.
Why not just wish him luck?

Can’t say I read it as harsh. Just looked like a functional decomposition for one solution for performing analysis with an automaton.

 

[Pieman333272]

“Bias” has special meaning when talking about artificial inteligence agents, so I’m qualifying to any one aware of the other meaning that I’m using “bias” as it would be used in conversation.

I know that bias can be baked into the data or the algorithm. But I wanted to go with an unsupervised algorithm and let the source data set be the ancient documents. While it’s still not impossible for some one to manipulate a system built this way that type of manipulation is presently outside of my abilities. Part of the reason I want to test this out for myself is that I expect a human to have bias and wanted to have some tool for putting the conclusions of Bart and others to some test. The algorithm that I have in mind is language neutral in that given a set of text it will “discover” the grammar and dialect on it’s own. Though I expect it to only be good for identifying writing style and noticing variations from a style.

My interest is more in the old testament than the new. I’ve got digital representations of the new testament in Greek, but I don’t have digital representations of the untranslated documents that formed the old testament. I’m not yet to the point where I need them but am expecting some challenge in acquiring this information.

If I can get it all to work I can think of some applications of the algorithm that extend beyond analyzing biblical documents. Given the amount of time that I expect it to take implement this I’ve figured it would be better to monetize either the end result or some components of my work instead of using it once and then throwing the hours of work away.

Right. It’s certainly a good idea, I’m merely pointing out that many factors must be accounted for. I think I mentioned above they just recently finished some OT checking software but it hasn’t been tested - I think there needs to be multiple forms of the software with maximum information to reach a conclusion based solely on AI. I also mentioned that the 2 NT ones I knew about contradicted each other, so more software is definitively a must. Even if you can’t get it to work for the OT, I’m sure a lot of companies will pay for it, what with an age of hackers and all.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Even if you can’t get it to work for the OT, I’m sure a lot of companies will pay for it, what with an age of hackers and all.

I’ve got to start building up some new intelectual property to earn income anyway; my first experiment with it is reaching the effective end of it’s earning potential. I’ve got a couple of years to work on the supporting components for the software. If I complete it before then it will be the IP of some one else (contractual obligations and all).

 

[TheWatcher]

I’m curious why you keep bringing up “Tinkerbell,” a make believe cartoon character. You should remember where you are, and who you are talking to. Equating belief in Tinkerbell with belief in God only makes you sound sarcastic and disrespectful.

I bring her up because she is fictional. She also doesn’t have the emotional hot buttons as mentioning Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Toothfairy. I picked a half remembered character from a cartoon I watched as child instead, in an attempt to be sensitive to my audience. I seek to demonstrate that the wager could be used for obvious fictitious characters and so isn’t a good argument to convince anyone to believe in god.

I’m not trying to argue the nonexistence of god. It would be no more welcome than you joining an atheist board and trying to convert people to Catholicism. I have not done so here and I never plan to. It was not my intent to be disrespectful and I was definitely not speaking with any sarcasm at all. I’m sorry.

 

[Faithdancer]

I bring her up because she is fictional. She also doesn’t have the emotional hot buttons as mentioning Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Toothfairy. I picked a half remembered character from a cartoon I watched as child instead, in an attempt to be sensitive to my audience. I seek to demonstrate that the wager could be used for obvious fictitious characters and so isn’t a good argument to convince anyone to believe in god.

I’m not trying to argue the nonexistence of god. It would be no more welcome than you joining an atheist board and trying to convert people to Catholicism. I have not done so here and I never plan to. It was not my intent to be disrespectful and I was definitely not speaking with any sarcasm at all. I’m sorry.

Okay thanks for clarifying! It’s just that I visited an atheist forum for about 30 seconds the other day, just to see… and the bashing and downright vulgarity, links with photoshopped images referencing the Pope, stuff like that, just made my blood boil. I’m sure it wasn’t a forum that our atheist members here would respect or appreciate either. So if I was oversensitive about your post, that’s why.

 

[Faithdancer]

Anyhoo, to me what the wager really means on a pragmatic level, reading between the lines, is that even if you’re not a believer, there is no harm in trying to live a more saintly life, just in case. One will certainly be more respected in this life, for the effort. That’s what I’m trying to do anyway, and I’ve lost some friends over it but then, were they really my friends?

 

[TheWatcher]

Anyhoo, to me what the wager really means on a pragmatic level, reading between the lines, is that even if you’re not a believer, there is no harm in trying to live a more saintly life, just in case. One will certainly be more respected in this life, for the effort. That’s what I’m trying to do anyway, and I’ve lost some friends over it but then, were they really my friends?

I guess I don’t understand the wager quite like that.
I try to lead a good life; I have morals and ethics and I strive to be balanced, fair and charitable.
I don’t believe in a god.

Pascal’s wager is aimed at convincing me, and others like me, to blindly believe in hope of a reward (or avoidance of a punishment).

It also doesn’t encourage moderation either- an Amish belief system is more “safe” than the Catholic one, for a non believer convinced by this argument. Surely the chances of being forgiven for believing in a strict god is better than a strict god forgiving you for believing in a less strict one.

 

[TheWatcher]

Okay thanks for clarifying! It’s just that I visited an atheist forum for about 30 seconds the other day, just to see… and the bashing and downright vulgarity, links with photoshopped images referencing the Pope, stuff like that, just made my blood boil. I’m sure it wasn’t a forum that our atheist members here would respect or appreciate either. So if I was oversensitive about your post, that’s why.

It’s okay- as an open atheist, I’m used to people questioning me. A lot of people simply don’t have much experience dealing with open atheists so they’re not quite sure what to expect; espeically in an environment like CAF. I’ve been a lurker here for many years, before this current screenname.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Watcher

**Pascal’s wager is aimed at convincing me, and others like me, to blindly believe in hope of a reward (or avoidance of a punishment). **

It is the atheist who is blind to God. It’s as if he plucks out his own eyes to make sure he cannot see.

It is the atheist who has no hope and doesn’t even believe in hope. Atheism is physically and spiritually suicidal. It is an illusion of certainty without foundation. How does the atheist know for a fact there is no God? He doesn’t. But he thinks and acts as if it is a fact and all the world are fools except him.

Alas for him, “the fool in his heart says there is no God.” Psalm 14:1

 

[ASimon]

Pascal already addressed this “problem”, actually. What Hitchens ignores is the *psychology *behind the Wager - you won’t get saved for fake faith, at least not in the form of it as saving faith, although maybe you will go to purgatory, but if you go with the whole scheme, go to mass, confession, pray nightly, Pascal argued that fake belief would become real belief. In fact, modern psychology supports this conclusion very much so.

Seems like a pretty dodgy way of coming to faith.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Pieman333272;8186730:

Pascal argued that fake belief would become

real belief. In fact, modern psychology supports this conclusion very much so.Seems like a pretty dodgy way of coming to faith.

Ever read “1984”? One of the themes in that book was telling a lie often enough such that the public would believe it.

“To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed…”

Fictional books aside, it sounds a lot like self deception to me. From Wiki:

“Irrationality is the foundation upon which the argued paradoxes of self-deception stem, and it is argued that not everyone has the “special talents” and capacities for self-deception. However, rationalization is influenced by a myriad of factors, including socialization, personal biases, fear, and cognitive repression. Such rationalization can be manipulated in both positive and negative fashions; convincing one to perceive a negative situation optimistically and vice versa. In contrast, rationalization alone cannot effectively clarify the dynamics of self-deception, as reason is just one adaptive form mental processes can take.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ASimon

**Seems like a pretty dodgy way of coming to faith. **

Well, since the atheist is dodging away from faith, he might as well dodge his way into it.

 

[sadiebelle]

Alas for him, “the fool in his heart says there is no God.” Psalm 14:1

“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.”

 

[Jocko_VT]

I’ve noticed that some militant atheists today brush off Pascal’s Wager as having been sufficiently contested numerous ways and thus is no longer compelling or even relevant. Despite the spiritual shallowness of the Wager, I think that it still holds water. No matter what one believes: it is definite that Hell is a possibility, and there are more compelling arguments for its existence as opposed to its contrary opinions. Furthermore, many arguments can be made for why believing in Jesus Christ as God is beneficial for the individual, beyond the safeness of taking the path that the Wager suggests (I don’t think there’s anything to lose in being a Christian - certainly nothing of inherent or incontestable value). The Wager may not be the best reason for one to become a Christian, but it is still a reason, and a logical one at that. What’s your view of it?

I haven’t read all the responses, but I figured I’d put in my two cents.

My biggest problem is that it reduces religious belief to a cost-benefit analysis, which seems contrary to all that is good in Christianity (or any other religion) in the first place. If your reason to be a Christian is because you like the potential payoff better, then I think you’ve missed the point of being a christian. I often ask Christians if they’d still love God so much if at the end of a truly faithful life, instead of going to Heaven, it’s just all over. What I find most attractive about religion is not the afterlife, but what it can make this life. The Kingdom of Heaven on Earth is a more attractive outcome to me than eternal life.

Another problem is that the same wager applies to everyone. It’s not theism or atheism, or Christianity or atheism. For example, if Buddhism (certain forms) is correct, the the christian isn’t taking the fullest advantage of this life, and is no better positioned than the atheist. If certain forms of Protestantism are correct, then the Catholic is going to Hell along with the atheist.

Lastly, the notion that one so freely chooses his/her beliefs doesn’t really strike me as correct. Setting aside the problem I mentioned first, even if it was a good rationale for becoming christian, it’s not really an option. If the alternative to what one already “believes” (whatever it is) is simply unbelievable to the individual, then it’s not really an option at all–it doesn’t matter how good it *would *be if it *were *true, because it’s not true.

Let me say this about these sorts of arguments, though. The biggest problem I and my non-religious friends have with religion (and christianity) is not religion, but religious people. How true can it be, we ask ourselves, when religious people don’t take it very seriously? To paraphrase Gandhi, We all love Jesus, and we’d find Christians’ arguments a lot more convincing if they themselves made a more sincere effort to to live like Jesus did.

Mind you, I’m saying this as an atheist, but one who’s been hooked by the Catholic Church’s social teaching to such an extent that I’ve been going to Mass and am considering starting the formal inquiry process.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

sadie

**“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.” **

Citing your source would be helpful.

Proverbs 26:4-5
4 Don’t answer the foolish arguments of fools,
or you will become as foolish as they are.
5 Be sure to answer the foolish arguments of fools,
or they will become wise in their own estimation.

 

[Jocko_VT]

sadie

**“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.” **

Citing your source would be helpful.

If I may, Matthew 5:22. Looks like the NASB.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jocko

But I say to you, whoever is angry 18 with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.

The context of the quote is in reference to anger.

“The fool in his heart says there is no God” is not said in anger. It is said as a matter of fact that the atheist has deceived himself about God. That is what it means to be foolish … to be easily deceived about the truth.

Paul also says we are “fools for Christ” … that is, we renounce the so-called wisdom of the Gentiles for the wisdom of God. He does not say it in anger, but as a matter of understanding that what seems foolish to others is really wisdom of the highest order.

 

[Jocko_VT]

jocko

But I say to you, whoever is angry 18 with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.

The context of the quote is in reference to anger.

“The fool in his heart says there is no God” is not said in anger. It is said as a matter of fact that the atheist has deceived himself about God. That is what it means to be foolish … to be easily deceived about the truth.

Paul also says we are “fools for Christ” … that is, we renounce the so-called wisdom of the Gentiles for the wisdom of God. He does not say it in anger, but as a matter of understanding that what seems foolish to others is really wisdom of the highest order.

I understand the context of those passages are different. But, I also know that Christians cite the “fool says in his heart” line for the purpose of calling atheists fools in a malicious way and not in the way that the Bible meant it. I think it’s unwise to call people fools–the word “fool” is loaded with meaning, and when you use it, even when citing the Bible, you’re being antagonistic, even if unintentionally. Don’t you agree?