What Do You Think Of Emmanuel's Wager©?

[Charlemagne_III]

Pascal’s wager also employs a false premise. It is not true that if God does not exist and you believe that God exists nothing bad will happen to you.

1. You will not know the truth.

But how would you know that you did not know the truth?

Remember, you cannot prove that God does not exist.

On the other hand, you will know the good things that will happen to you:

Hope in the afterlife.
Ethical uplift.
Uplift in morale.
Organized charity.
Organized moral teaching.
Sense of purpose.
Humility versus pride.
Etc. etc.

Now give me a list of all the good things that will happen if you are an atheist and there is a God.

 

[wittgenstein]

I did not say that God does not exist. I said that it is Pascal’s contention that IF God did not exist one would not be at any disadvantage if one believed that God did exist.
It is part of Pascal’s argument to provisionally assume that God does not exist.
In first year logic one learns that to provisionally assume something is not to say that it is true.
In other words, Pascal is not saying that God does not exist. He is saying that if we temporarily assume that God does not exist, even then there is no disadvantage in believing that God exists.

 

[wittgenstein]

An example,
Either you were drunk or you were not drunk.

1. If you were drunk when you killed Mr. X you are guilty of murder.
2. If you were not drunk when you killed Mr. X you are guilty of murder.
3. Therefore you are guilty of murder.
   It would be irrational to say, you cannot know if you were drunk, therefore you are not guilty of murder.
   Now, if someone proved that if you were drunk when you killed Mr. X that is not murder that would be different. Similarly, it is obvious that IF God did not exist and you believed that God did exist you would suffer a disadvantage.

 

[wittgenstein]

Now give me a list of all the good things that will happen if you are an atheist and there is a God.

Why? Even if I cannot that has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of Pascal’s wager. Remember that truth and validity are not two words for the same concept.

 

[wittgenstein]

In other words I followed Pascal’s lead and temporarily assumed that God does not exist,followed the consequences of such a proposition and showed that IF God did not exist and one believed that God did exist there would be disadvantages.

 

[wittgenstein]

But how would you know that you did not know the truth?

.

Are you saying that if I do not know for sure that God exists and I do not know with certainty that God does not exist (agnostic ) and God does not exist, there will be no disadvantage in believing in God? That is like saying I am not sure if a bear is in my yard, however there is no bear in my yard. * Therefore there is no disadvantage in my never leaving my house. Similarly, (if we temporarily assume along with Pascal, that there is no God) I will restrain my intellect and free enquiry for no reason. That has consequences.

• However, I wrongly believe that it is more likely that there is a bear.

 

[wittgenstein]

If I believe something that is untue, that has consequences. For example if I am uncertain that 1+1=5 but think it is most likely to be true , that has consequences. I will make horrendous mistakes at tax time and have the IRS after me!
Similarly, not leaving my house for no reason is a disadvantage. See post 249 for context.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If I believe something that is untue, that has consequences. For example if I am uncertain that 1+1=5 but think it is most likely to be true , that has consequences. I will make horrendous mistakes at tax time and have the IRS after me!
Similarly, not leaving my house for no reason is a disadvantage. See post 249 for context.

Somewhere between post # 245 and 250 I got lost in your shifting sands of logic.

I’m afraid We are not only not on the same page, we are not even in the same book.

I’ll concede that wittgenstein is smarter than Charlemagne!

 

[wittgenstein]

Thank you for that post. I have delayed responding because I (wrongly ) thought that you might have been being sarcastic. You are a scholar and a gentleman,sir.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Thank you for that post. I have delayed responding because I (wrongly ) thought that you might have been being sarcastic. You are a scholar and a gentleman,sir.

You are most welcome.

I was a Unitarian/Universalist for about 5-6 years. As I recall, in our congregation there was a fair distribution of atheists, agnostics, and liberal Christians among us. Is that way pretty much now? You could reply by private message if you prefer.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’ll concede that wittgenstein is smarter than Charlemagne!

I’d give Charlemagne better odds fighting a land war in Asia, though. Logical atomism doesn’t really come in handy, in such cases.

(Though it was developed in the trenches of World War I, fascinatingly!)

 

[Ion]

There are many arguments against both Wagers (yours and Pascal’s), but the most important is the point that genuine belief doesn’t arise through gambling. I cannot believe in something merely because I consciously recognize that it would be advantageous.

Do people really believe their gods are so daft that they would be hoodwinked by the mere claim to believe in something? Wouldn’t God know that you aren’t actually convinced?

Real love and real faith as well come through education and good works. I do not believe in love or faith at “first sight” or passive attitude and “when it happens, it happens”. Total difference between atheists and Christians.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

For many people, fyi, following the wager that offers the best possible outcome means following the belief that no God exists. For those people, they feel more honest and in touch with reality going with that one. That would be the more logical choice to them.

I don’t see how death and annihilation is “more honest and in touch with reality” than the universal desire for everlasting life. That is not my idea of the best possible outcome.

 

[inocente]

More silly-putty logic?

Why would anybody not be afraid of death, especially someone who has just had a close brush with it.

Are you condemning fear of death?

It is not the most selfish act possible to try, as Pascal did, to get atheists to see that they have everything to gain and nothing to lose if they embrace Christ.

You may detect I am not greatly enamored of your logic.

Any belief motivated by fear is irrational. Pascal had a morbid dread of his own death, and instead of facing up to his fear, he used sham logic to try to justify his cowardly preoccupation with himself.

Most of us don’t suffer from such crippling anxiety. We didn’t exist for most of history, so if we stop existing at death then no big deal. There are better reasons for belief.

Maybe God took pity on Pascal, and decided the greatest gift he could bestow was to rub him out forever, so he never needed to be anxious again.

You may detect I am not greatly enamored of snake oil logic.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Most of us don’t suffer from such crippling anxiety. We didn’t exist for most of history, so if we stop existing at death then no big deal. There are better reasons for belief.

There is no better reason for belief than to fear God’s justice and crave his mercy.

The atheist cannot do either until he admits that both are possible.

Don’t kid yourself that atheists don’t fear death and don’t fear it with great ferocity.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Any belief motivated by fear is irrational.

Is it irrational to believe and fear the tornado the weatherman says is heading your way?

C’mon, you can do better than pop psychology.

 

[jaimelopez]

I think the argument from fine tuning has best structure to it. In other words, if we found some evidence that getting a universe that allowed life was very unlikely given naturalistic explanations, it would make the hypothesis that there was some deliberate fine tuning (i.e. by a God) much more plausible.

Unfortunately no one (neither the theologians nor the scientists) have any real answers to the questions that would let us make the above argument. We don’t know what sort of universes might allow life, and we don’t know what sort of laws are more likely than others. Therefore, the argument is a good idea, but we will have to wait until our understanding improves enough to fill in those blanks.

Universes with no stars can’t support life. Universes that collapse before galaxies or even stars can form can’t support life. Universes that expand too rapidly for galaxies to form (and create heavy elements) can’t support life. Universes with only hydrogen and helium can’t support life. Universes with no atoms can’t support life. Etc., etc., etc.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Universes with no stars can’t support life. Universes that collapse before galaxies or even stars can form can’t support life. Universes that expand too rapidly for galaxies to form (and create heavy elements) can’t support life. Universes with only hydrogen and helium can’t support life. Universes with no atoms can’t support life. Etc., etc., etc.

If one concedes (an unwarranted concession, by the way) that there are an infinite number of universes, there are an infinite number of opportunities to produce a universe like ours with the capacity for life like ours, or life even more advanced than ours.

Unfortunately for those who think this possible, this is a hypothesis without a theory. And if the hypothesis ever should rise to the level of theory, it would be a theory without proof unless an infinite number of humans could occupy all the planets in all the infinite universes to verify it.

 

[inocente]

Is it irrational to believe and fear the tornado the weatherman says is heading your way?

C’mon, you can do better than pop psychology.

C’mom, you know there’s a huge difference between an irrational phobia and a justified response to immediate danger.

In the Cold War, some people believed a superior race of invisible aliens would intervene to make all the missiles disappear and save humanity from nuclear annihilation. Pascal is similarly motivated, by fear of his own annihilation.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

C’mom, you know there’s a huge difference between an irrational phobia and a justified response to immediate danger.

In the Cold War, some people believed a superior race of invisible aliens would intervene to make all the missiles disappear and save humanity from nuclear annihilation. Pascal is similarly motivated, by fear of his own annihilation.

Yes, hope springs eternal … except apparently in you.