What Do You Think Of Emmanuel's Wager©?

[Oreoracle]

Now, as to your discussion of passion, do you think having a passion for the truth would assist you in finding the truth, rather than being neutral about whether you find truth or not?

Just to clarify, the position I’ve maintained on this thread has only been that passion isn’t necessary for discovering truth.

As for whether or not it helps, I think the results are mixed. People who are passionate for unveiling the truth tend to expect the truth to have a form that’s pleasing to them. If they discover the truth isn’t to their liking…well, there’s no telling what they might do.

Take Einstein for example. No one can doubt that he was passionate in his search for truth, but his passion led to his greatest errors. He found the idea of a static universe aesthetically pleasing, so he overlooked evidence that the universe was expanding. Later, he regarded this as his greatest mistake. He detested the possibility that the laws of physics had uncertainty built into them, so he dismissed quantum mechanics. Near the end of his life, he grudgingly conceded that it was useful, but still refused to accept it.

So I think we should value curiosity, but even curiosity comes with a dark side: the desire to prove that the universe is the way one wishes it to be. And when one sees proof of the contrary, the result is a degree of denial rivaled only by fundamentalists.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Just to clarify, the position I’ve maintained on this thread has only been that passion isn’t necessary for discovering truth.

As for whether or not it helps, I think the results are mixed. People who are passionate for unveiling the truth tend to expect the truth to have a form that’s pleasing to them. If they discover the truth isn’t to their liking…well, there’s no telling what they might do.

Take Einstein for example. No one can doubt that he was passionate in his search for truth, but his passion led to his greatest errors. He found the idea of a static universe aesthetically pleasing, so he overlooked evidence that the universe was expanding. Later, he regarded this as his greatest mistake. He detested the possibility that the laws of physics had uncertainty built into them, so he dismissed quantum mechanics. Near the end of his life, he grudgingly conceded that it was useful, but still refused to accept it.

So I think we should value curiosity, but even curiosity comes with a dark side: the desire to prove that the universe is the way one wishes it to be. And when one sees proof of the contrary, the result is a degree of denial rivaled only by fundamentalists.

Fair enough, I’ll accept that it isn’t necessary, if you accept that it can be beneficial in most situations. Having no desire for truth isn’t likely to lead one to expend the effort to discover truth. I also agree that some claiming to seek truth actually seek to confirm their own biases. Some people can also be genuinely mistaken in making their best approximation of the truth, Newton for example.

Starting from there, how does one best go about seeking truth on the topic of God’s existence and how best to respond to what we discover?

 

[stewstew03]

It’s unfortunate that many of the catholics doing apologetics take the route of:

1. Assert that something must be a certain way
2. Continue asserting the point, while avoiding any request for evidence
3. Insist you provide evidence to disprove their assertion, while making personal attacks.

Thankfully not all catholics do this, some can be very enjoyable to discuss matters with, but there are certainly enough to make it annoying.

You know what’s also unfortunate? Character assassination…

(Way to pretend like you’re taking the high-road without actually taking the high-road).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Starting from there, how does one best go about seeking truth on the topic of God’s existence and how best to respond to what we discover?

The first move is to open not only one’s head, but also one’s heart, to the possibility that God exists. Those who open their heads but not their hearts will have a perfunctory God at best (Deism, Pantheism), and no God at worst (Agnosticism, Atheism).

God is not only approached with Reason, but also with Imagination and Intuition. I really think that Intuition is the key. All races of men have intuited the existence of Deity. Deity has not been revealed to all races equally, but the urge to find God has always and everywhere been more profound than the urge to flee God.

So here is the question to follow your own:

Why are men drawn to God, and why are men drawn away from God?

 

[Non_Serviam]

You know what’s also unfortunate? Character assassination…

(Way to pretend like you’re taking the high-road without actually taking the high-road).

I never claimed to be taking the high road-it’s a behaviour I find to be very frustrating when I’ve made an honest effort to research a topic and look for evidence, and in return get assertions with no proof for them. I’ve watched the same thing on this thread for several pages and felt a bit of empathy for Oreoracle.

If the description doesn’t apply to you, then please pay it no mind, it’s my hope that by clearly delineating the behaviour and indicating how unpleasant it is that some who have done it, intentionally or unintentionally, will change their approach and we can enjoy some good discussion. I don’t consider that an unreasonable request of those claiming to want dialogue.

 

[Non_Serviam]

The first move is to open not only one’s head, but also one’s heart, to the possibility that God exists. Those who open their heads but not their hearts will have a perfunctory God at best (Deism, Pantheism), and no God at worst (Agnosticism, Atheism).

God is not only approached with Reason, but also with Imagination and Intuition. I really think that Intuition is the key. All races of men have intuited the existence of Deity. Deity has not been revealed to all races equally, but the urge to find God has always and everywhere been more profound than the urge to flee God.

So here is the question to follow your own:

Why are men drawn to God, and why are men drawn away from God?

While I believe that passion and curiosity play a role in our lives, I agree that passion placed ahead of truth can keep us clinging to our incorrect beliefs.

My answer to your question would be that God takes the lead in drawing us to Himself and it is a matter of His timing.

What would you suggest to Oreoracle is a good way to explore the possibility that God may exist and want to have a relationship with us? One that would clearly demonstrate which claimant for the title of God is correct and who can best show what God wants?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

What would you suggest to Oreoracle is a good way to explore the possibility that God may exist and want to have a relationship with us? One that would clearly demonstrate which claimant for the title of God is correct and who can best show what God wants?

Read Pascal’s Pensees. The two questions you pose are the two great questions that Pascal intended to answer. While he answered them partially (he never lived to organize and complete his venture), he made a very good start in Pensees.

My own experience of conversion began by listening to sacred music. The heart must be opened before the head can be convinced of anything supernatural. Also, timing is all important. There is a time for rebelling and a time for reconciliation. We cannot force the timeline. It will come of its own accord. Peace is ultimately what the soul wants and needs. Peace comes when we are tired of all the vain striving to beat God out of our souls.

 

[wittgenstein]

Faith and/or love based on gain is not love or faith. Suppose I tell my wife I married her because she was rich. Similarly, it is wrong to love God because I want the riches of heaven.
Suppose I tell my wife that I love her because she is a big woman and she might beat me up if I don’t love her. Similarly, if I love God because of a fear of hell, I don’t think God will like that answer.

 

[Oreoracle]

Fair enough, I’ll accept that it isn’t necessary, if you accept that it can be beneficial in most situations.

Certainly.

Starting from there, how does one best go about seeking truth on the topic of God’s existence and how best to respond to what we discover?

How one seeks truth depends on how one defines “truth”. Scientists experiment to uncover truth because, in science, truth is provisional–an agreement between a model and data gained through sensory perception thus far. Logicians construct proofs for their truths because, in logic, to be true is to be provable from the axioms.

So we have a couple of examples in which the paths to truth are different because the definition of “truth” is different. So to answer your question, I need to know how one would define “truth” in a religious context. Concurrence with a model? Provability from axioms?

Indeed, how one defines “truth” determines how strong the statement “God exists” is, what it really means, and what else it entails. No one’s ever defined it for me in a religious context. They usually say, in the spirit of PRmerger, that there is only one such definition, it’s the one they’re using, and they needn’t provide it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Faith and/or love based on gain is not love or faith. Suppose I tell my wife I married her because she was rich. Similarly, it is wrong to love God because I want the riches of heaven.
Suppose I tell my wife that I love her because she is a big woman and she might beat me up if I don’t love her. Similarly, if I love God because of a fear of hell, I don’t think God will like that answer.

You can love God and fear hell simultaneously.

Christians can also chew gum and walk a straight line at the same time.

A Christian might love God not for riches, but for gratitude, much as a son loves his Father.

A Christian might love a wealthy woman not for her wealth, but for the beauty of her soul.

 

[Jerbear]

There’s what’s called ‘The Pascal’s Wager’ and
there’s another – mine actually – called
‘Emmanuel’s Wager’.

Um, I do not know if you’ve read that of Pascal’s,
but it’s basically a PRAGMATIC, apologetic
approach in betting on Theism or Atheism.

Having developed a penchant for philosophy of
religion over the years, I figured out that, ultimately,
“atheism” is a poor bettor than “theism”. And as
this logic being a wager, the stakes are, for a wise
bettor, to choose the side/outcome that is most
favourable.

Okay, this is briefly the syllogism of Emmanuel’s
Wager©:

1. For the atheist who disbelieves in God but
   ‘believes’ in Evolution:

A. If his worldview is true about evolution, then
when he dies, he wouldn’t even be able to find out
for himself if his worldview was right all along. He
simply vanishes into oblivion according the tenets
of evolution. And with no an I-told-you-so
response to the theist.
B. If his worldview is false and that God exists,
then when he dies, he goes to hell according to the
tenets of Christianity (well, you’re free to raise your
many-gods objection here). And there will be an I-
told-you-so response, this time, from the theist to
him.

1. For the theist who believes in God and rejects
   evolution as the origin of life:

A. If his worldview is true, then when he dies, he
goes to heaven according to the tenets of
Christianity. And there’ll definitely be an I-told-
you-so response to the atheist.
B. If his worldview is false and that evolution is
true, he simply vanishes. He doesn’t need to
confirm anything for himself because evolution was
never his worldview. And no I-told-you-so from
anybody.

So, you see, atheism nurtures TERRIBLE BETTORS
who lose in all two of their (only) outcomes (1a &
b), while theism nurtures WISER BETTORS who win
in all two of their outcome (2a & b).

I don’t see how this is anything new. A person cannot simply believe in case they might go to a hell that they don’t really believe in. This would be like living in a dictatorship and telling the leader that you love him when you really don’t, but that does not work for God since he knows your true thoughts. Besides if a theist happened to choose the wrong religion then they would burn in hell right along with all the atheists. A Muslim could use this argument right back against Christians. They’re hell is worse than the Christian hell so it would actually be a safer bet to join Islam since if you are wrong then your punishment won’t be as bad as if you were wrong the other way.

 

[wittgenstein]

Another problem with Pascal’s wager is that it works for any proposition. For example,

1. If you believe in Santa, you will recieve many presents.
2. If Santa exists its in your best interest to believe in Santa.
3. If Santa does not exist and you believe in him, nothing bad will happen to you.
4. Therefore it is wise to believe in Santa.
   Its possible that God does not make his presence obvious because than your good actions might be because of reward and punishment and not altruistic.
5. God does not want you to know that he exists.
6. If God does exist, it is in your best interest to not know that he exists bexause that is part of the plan.
7. If God does not exist, nothing bad will happen if you think he does not exist.
8. Therefore, it is in your best interest to not believe that he exists.
   Note, that I am criticising Pascal’s wager, not the existence of God.
   For example,
9. Obama is president.
10. Nixon was president.
11. Therefore, Michigan is part of the USA
    I can agree with the conclusion but still know that the argument is invalid.
    Yes, I know that Pascal’s wager was not meant to prove that God exists, only that it is in our best interest to believe that God exists. I showed that it fails at even that.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yes, I know that Pascal’s wager was not meant to prove that God exists, only that it is in our best interest to believe that God exists. I showed that it fails at even that.

No you didn’t.

You can’t prove there is no God and no judgment ahead.

So if there is, Pascal’s wager is the smart bet!

 

[Oreoracle]

No you didn’t.

You can’t prove there is no God and no judgment ahead.

So if there is, Pascal’s wager is the smart bet!

You can’t prove there is no Santa nor can you prove that you won’t eventually get presents if you believe in Santa, so belief in Santa is a smart bet.

Face it: It’s the same argument. Pascal may have very well made other points in his works beside this, but this particular argument is bad.

 

[wittgenstein]

No you didn’t.

You can’t prove there is no God and no judgment ahead.

So if there is, Pascal’s wager is the smart bet!

I proved that Pascal’s wager is invalid. One can have an invalid argument and a true conclusion.

1. Obama is president.
2. Washington was president.
3. Therefore, Michigan is part of the USA.
   That was an example of an invalid but true argument.
4. All Martains eat snakes.
5. Bob is a Martain.
6. Therefore Bob eats snakes.
   Is an example of a valid argument that is not true.
   Since Pascal’s wager is invalid, it does not prove that believing in God is the best bet.
   In logic “truth” and "validity " are not two words for the same concept.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I proved that Pascal’s wager is invalid. One can have an invalid argument and a true conclusion.

1. Obama is president.
2. Washington was president.
3. Therefore, Michigan is part of the USA.

Since neither the subjects nor the predicates in the first and second statements are present in the conclusion, this is not even a syllogism. Moreover, the first statement does not contain a generalization, another reason why this is not a syllogism.

Find out what a syllogism is before you start making them up.

Pascal’s wager is not a syllogism. It is a bet.

But if you call this a syllogism, is it valid or not?

Harmless bets are worth doing.
Betting on God is a harmless bet.
Betting on God is worth doing.

 

[wittgenstein]

1. If you believe in God, you will be rewarded.
2. If 1 is true and God exists, then it is in your best interest to believe in God.
3. If 1 is false and /or God does not exist nothing bad will happen to you.
4. Therefore, it is in your best interest to believe in God.
   That is essentially the argument behind Pascal’s wager.
   I disagree, Pascal’s wager is more than just a bet. It is also an argument that attempts to prove that believing in God is your best option.
   As for the first part of your post about the Obama invalid syllogism, I really do not want to get into a distracting and superfluous debate about if an invalid syllogism is still a syllogism or what degree of invalidity it must have to not qualify as a syllogism. That is mere semantics and distracts from the substance of our debate.

 

[wittgenstein]

Sure I will provisionally concede that the Obama argument is not a syllogism and replace it with any invalid syllogism you wish. It doesnt change a thing. Pascal’s wager is still an invalid argument.

 

[wittgenstein]

But if you call this a syllogism, is it valid or not?

Harmless bets are worth doing.
Betting on God is a harmless bet.
Betting on God is worth doing.

Interesting point!
It seems valid at first sight. However, when seen in its totality it is not valid.
If all harmless bets are worth doing then betting that God does not exist is worth doing. *

Betting that God exists is worth doing and betting that God does not exist is worth doing. I do not think that is the conclusion Pascal wanted from his argument.

• Remember that any first proposition in the syllogism can be proven by the “logic” of Pascal’s wager. To say that Pascal’s first proposition is the only true one makes his wager argument a tautology.

 

[Oreoracle]

Keep in mind, Wittgenstein, that Charlemagne is not a Unitarian. His god isn’t as forgiving as yours. So, to him, betting against God isn’t harmless, it’s damning.

But I think the deeper point here is that beliefs are not bets. I can’t force myself to believe in something, no matter how profitable it may be.