Fun with "Pascal's Wager"

[EGarrett]

I used to be annoyed with Pascal's Wager, because like it or not, there appeared to be some kind of twisted logic to it that was difficult to challenge.

So, I just kept pondering it, and I'm glad to say I'm not annoyed by it any more. In fact, I like Pascal's Wager and I hope every Christian brings it up. I've had the following ideas about it and I'm curious what other people think of them.

1. If religious people subscribe to Pascal Wager, then shouldn't they be Mormons? Or whichever Christian sect it is that promises your own universe if you follow the rules? That's the most return on your bet. In fact, wouldn't it make you a slave to the scariest/coolest story you'd heard to that point?

2. Wouldn't it be FUN to have someone around who REALLY subscribed to Pascal's Wager? You call him up at two in the morning..."Jacob, bro, it's me again. I hate to break it to you, but God just called me again...and said he was gonna send you and everyone you care about to hell after you die if you don't get out of bed and get me some burgers."

He'd have to do it, wouldn't he? In fact, he'd have to do basically everything you said as long as you swear that God just promised to do something unspeakably awful (and untestable) if he didn't.

And if the person using Pascal's Wager as an argument DIDN'T do this, then he's not really subscribing to it. He's just using it after the fact to support a belief of his that isn't based on Pascal's Wager or any other logic. (surprise, surprise)

This makes sense to me. How about you?

[HeyLeroy]

Makes sense to me.

[c4ts]

Go for Elzoob. He covers all possible rewards, plus the ones that are contradictory and impossible. Wager now and get free gasoline for eternity.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

1. If religious people subscribe to Pascal Wager, then shouldn't they be Mormons? Or whichever Christian sect it is that promises your own universe if you follow the rules? That's the most return on your bet. In fact, wouldn't it make you a slave to the scariest/coolest story you'd heard to that point?

They could start their own religion, like L. Ron Hubbard, but actually believe their spew. Make it an easy religion, have sex at least once in your life and you get to become an omnipotent, immortal and all knowing God after you die.

[bruto]

Well, even if you decided to accept the wager and take up religion, I don't see how that obligates you to be so credulous as to beleive any yoyo who says god talked to him. You would, presumably, take up that religion as normal people do, relinquishing only a portion of your intelligence, not all of it.

It's hard, though, to address the basic flaw of the wager, which is that it assumes there's only one real religious choice. The fix was in for Pascal. In his world there was realy only one option: The Church.

In this age of diversity, it's more difficult. We can gamble on what we think is the most likely, or reasonable, religion, but for some of us that is like asking if we would prefer the taste of gasoline or horse urine.

My best bet would be first, to eliminate fringe religions, on the ground that even if I can't see the point, a religion widely held might have more of one, or at least it can claim to, and there might be safety in numbers - God might forgive us more for following the wrong bandwagon than for playing solo. Also, the less doctrine we have to make up, the less responsibility we have. We can pass the buck. So, we'll choose a big, popular religion with powerful, coercive leaders and lots of dogma to which we can surrender our own judgment. It's downhill from there. Look around and see which religion promises the most horrible damnation if you guess wrong. There's no point in taking the wager if you're going to decide to be a Unitarian, for example, because if they're right, you won't gain anything by joining them anyway.

Catholicism. In the bag.

[EGarrett]

They could start their own religion, like L. Ron Hubbard, but actually believe their spew. Make it an easy religion, have sex at least once in your life and you get to become an omnipotent, immortal and all knowing God after you die.
That's why I think the Wager breaks down. If these religious people really subscribe to it, they wouldn't be Christians, because people HAVE started these other, more "spiritually lucrative" religions like the Mormons and they haven't flocked there.

Well, even if you decided to accept the wager and take up religion, I don't see how that obligates you to be so credulous as to beleive any yoyo who says god talked to him.
But isn't that the core of the logic? Either this statement is true or isn't true. If I do what it says and it's true, then I benefit greatly. If it's false I lose nothing. Thus, I have more to gain by doing what it says.

Why is it applied exclusively to Christianity? I don't see any real reason to choose Christianity over another religion. If you cut it down to only Christanity, aren't you pre-supposing in your argument that Christianity somehow has some inherent value that makes it worthy of consideration over the others? Then you're moving into circular logic...

My best bet would be first, to eliminate fringe religions, on the ground that even if I can't see the point, a religion widely held might have more of one, or at least it can claim to, and there might be safety in numbers
As far as I know, Hinduism has a lot more followers than Christianity. And since it has it's own system of Gods, you'd have to pick one and reject the other...

God might forgive us more for following the wrong bandwagon than for playing solo.
But don't a lot of religions threaten you not to worship false idols? Seems like you'd have to pick one and take the risk...and there doesn't seem to be much reason to pick Christianity over Hinduism...

(btw, thanks for being willing to play Devil's Advocate for the time being.)

[bruto]

That's why I think the Wager breaks down. If these religious people really subscribe to it, they wouldn't be Christians, because people HAVE started these other, more "spiritually lucrative" religions like the Mormons and they haven't flocked there.


But isn't that the core of the logic? Either this statement is true or isn't true. If I do what it says and it's true, then I benefit greatly. If it's false I lose nothing. Thus, I have more to gain by doing what it says.

As far as the nighttime calls, I don't think that making the basic wager commits you to gambling on every instance. Even if you acknowledge that religious faith, especially one like Catholicism, involves an irrational leap, it does not mean you must suspend all judgment, or that you need to make the wager over again every time someone claims to be speaking for God. For one thing, that religion at least allows you to make the occasional mistake, sin, etc. without blowing the whole thing. At the local level, the odds are different and the penalty for a wrong bet much less.

Why is it applied exclusively to Christianity? I don't see any real reason to choose Christianity over another religion. If you cut it down to only Christanity, aren't you pre-supposing in your argument that Christianity somehow has some inherent value that makes it worthy of consideration over the others? Then you're moving into circular logic...

I agree


As far as I know, Hinduism has a lot more followers than Christianity. And since it has it's own system of Gods, you'd have to pick one and reject the other...


But don't a lot of religions threaten you not to worship false idols? Seems like you'd have to pick one and take the risk...and there doesn't seem to be much reason to pick Christianity over Hinduism...

(btw, thanks for being willing to play Devil's Advocate for the time being.)

I was being a little bit facetious in some of my comments before, but I actually do agree with you that the wager itself is untenable in good faith. Unless there is really only one religion known to you, then I don't think you can both make the wager honestly and make it worth pursuing. The odds aren't good enough if you have to choose between numerous religions on their claims or merits without some prior faith. Pascal predicated his wager on its being a no-lose proposition, and if it isn't it loses attractiveness. As I said, I think for Pascal the fix was in because he was already committed to Christianity (I presume Catholic as well) as the only worthy choice: his decision was based more on faith than he cared to admit.

[cajela]

Pascal's Wager convinced me, so I now worship the FSM. He touched my soul with His Noodly Appendage; I think the sauce was puttanesca. I eagerly await his dinner bell call to that heavenly beer volcano, and I've put in a request that my stripper from the factory be the Johnny Depp model. Cheese & sauce be with you all. Ramen.

[Odin]

Based on the wager you could believe in no Gods, so that you don't anger any by believing in one the real God hates, or all Gods so that you at least cover the real one.

Your best option might be to believe in God, but not actually specify any details of features of that God, so that when your called before Zeus or whoever, your technically believed in them.

(of course there is the problem of Gods that prefer honesty, and ones who do not like being believed in.)

[ReFLeX]

Lacsap's Wager:

If God is all-knowing and all-just, then he created me knowing exactly whether or not I would believe in him, and an all-just being wouldn't create someone knowing they were damned to eternal torment.

[c4ts]

Lacsap's Wager:

If God is all-knowing and all-just, then he created me knowing exactly whether or not I would believe in him, and an all-just being wouldn't create someone knowing they were damned to eternal torment.

Evidently this is not an all-powerful God as well, because an all-powerful God could restructure justice as he saw fit until it was just to create someone damned to eternal torment.

[Elind]

I used to be annoyed with Pascal's Wager, because like it or not, there appeared to be some kind of twisted logic to it that was difficult to challenge.

So, I just kept pondering it, and I'm glad to say I'm not annoyed by it any more. In fact, I like Pascal's Wager and I hope every Christian brings it up. I've had the following ideas about it and I'm curious what other people think of them.

1. If religious people subscribe to Pascal Wager, then shouldn't they be Mormons? Or whichever Christian sect it is that promises your own universe if you follow the rules? That's the most return on your bet. In fact, wouldn't it make you a slave to the scariest/coolest story you'd heard to that point?

2. Wouldn't it be FUN to have someone around who REALLY subscribed to Pascal's Wager? You call him up at two in the morning..."Jacob, bro, it's me again. I hate to break it to you, but God just called me again...and said he was gonna send you and everyone you care about to hell after you die if you don't get out of bed and get me some burgers."

He'd have to do it, wouldn't he? In fact, he'd have to do basically everything you said as long as you swear that God just promised to do something unspeakably awful (and untestable) if he didn't.

And if the person using Pascal's Wager as an argument DIDN'T do this, then he's not really subscribing to it. He's just using it after the fact to support a belief of his that isn't based on Pascal's Wager or any other logic. (surprise, surprise)

This makes sense to me. How about you?

I don't know about burgers, but Pascal's wager pisses me off for two reasons. The first is that it has been pointed out to me here that Pascal was probably sincere when he posed it, and I imagine that he had a brilliant mind, yet comes up with this trivia. Perhaps he was an idiot savant?

The second reason it pisses me off is that in order to take it seriously you have to already be in the mindset that you believe (or suspect) that your god is a vindictive SOB. Some people, who believe in god, would never think so badly of him, and therefore would quite legitimately never fall for such BS as Pascal proposed, even while following the rule anyway.

Needless to say the same applies to serious atheists (not agnostics).

[ReFLeX]

Evidently this is not an all-powerful God as well, because an all-powerful God could restructure justice as he saw fit until it was just to create someone damned to eternal torment.

...just like an all-powerful God can change the laws of logic so that an unliftable rock becomes a logical possibility?!

You're saying that God's laws would be arbitrary; that if God says so, then it is ok to mutilate babies. And then goodness, or justice, no longer have any meaning.

[EGarrett]

I don't know about burgers, but Pascal's wager pisses me off for two reasons. The first is that it has been pointed out to me here that Pascal was probably sincere when he posed it, and I imagine that he had a brilliant mind, yet comes up with this trivia. Perhaps he was an idiot savant?

The second reason it pisses me off is that in order to take it seriously you have to already be in the mindset that you believe (or suspect) that your god is a vindictive SOB. Some people, who believe in god, would never think so badly of him, and therefore would quite legitimately never fall for such BS as Pascal proposed, even while following the rule anyway.

Needless to say the same applies to serious atheists (not agnostics).

Brilliant doesn't mean infallible. Neither does genius. Bobby Fischer (the Chess player) has one of the most brilliant minds on earth, and he's spent most of his recent years preaching hate speech over Phillipine radio (you should visit his website). Military geniuses like Napoleon invariably become cocky and blundered into places like Waterloo...

In fact...the more time you devote to being exceptional in a particular field, the more ignorant and maladjusted you tend to become in others. Fischer is easily a prime example. So I can see how Pascal could have been misguided about religion...but yet somehow still found a very intelligent way to justify his thinking...

[Ossai]

Ok, this is from the Darwin Awards forum (before they got a new board) so the link may not work. Truth Or Heresy (http://forum.darwinawards.com/index.php?ac...&hl=paper&st=84)

It was posted by EvilDave – he was active on both boards.


And here is an exert from the post by Evildave.
----------------------------------
It's all according to how you partition the numbers, really.

Given the breakdown of the odds, from the agnostic POV ("I dunno", or "things proposed so far about deities are probably wrong"), you're covering a value so nearly 100% that it may as well be 100%, because the one "true" answer and description of a deity (or deities, or lack of deity) and its (or their, or nobody's) real wishes (if it/they even know them themself/(themselves), and exist as a real entity to have them) represents one infinitely small possibility we have no way of verifying.

The thing is, that god is not more provable or real than Invisible Pink Unicorns (IPUs), Purple Dinosaurs (PDs), AquaMan (AM), Little Green Men (LGM), Miscellaneous Faerie Tale Creatures (MFTCs), Demons Pushing Electrons (DPE), or Elementary Evil Particles (EEPs). If you break down the odds the "fair" way, there is so little chance that anything said or believed about any deity is wrong that you may as well believe the Tooth Fairy (TF) had an affair with Santa Claus (SC), and an invisible pixy (IP) was the result.

There is no data to support any of these statement, and there is no data to support that there is an uber-being who made everything (and an uber-uber-being who made it, and an uber-uber-uber-being that made the one who made it, recursing into absurdity as you must when offering a "must have been created, couldn't have just happened" argument).

My favorite way to break it down is:

"Truth Or Heresy"

Start with two pieces of paper.

Leave one blank. It's "Nothing".

Write "God" on the other.

No god: 50%

God: 50%

In the absence of all information (and we have no information), then it's a 50/50 chance you're right when you ask the question this way.

Once you agree that there's a 50/50 chance to begin with, this is your "Core Assumption", so now just keep partitioning the remaining halves of "God" by adding True/False (t/f) conditions to the Core Assumption. More than one god? t/f Wants something from people? t/f Gives a **** about people? t/f Has a gift for people? t/f, etc. Every decision subdivides another assumption by half.

It's not fair, but who really wants fair? Certainly not the religious who see everything as good OR evil, black OR white, "my religion" OR "heresy". With this sort of logical model, subdividing true OR false is absolutely correct. Subdividing in any other way is "moral relativism".

The "right" answer is still only shaving into the 50% possibility of "is a god", and not touching the 50% possibility that there is not, because "false" was a "Core Rejection", and was not subdivided because there was nothing about a negative assertion to subdivide. Unless you enjoy "Strange Loops".

When you can't subdivide "truths" any further, get a very sharp knife and cut out that last tiny bit.

The last speck of paper dust you couldn't write in is for the dogmatic believer.

The partitioned and subdivided page with a hole in it (or the pile of torn pieces if you subdivided by tearing in halves) is for the deist or non-dogmatic believer, who believes there is a god but won't pin it down or subdivide from a given possibility.

The blank "nothing" page is for the atheist.

The agnostic couldn't make up his mind, so he just doesn't get any.

Just point at the other potential microscopically small boxes that "might" be right (subdividing it as necessary), if any of the fickle little questions was answered wrong along the way, and point out you're damned if you're even a little off, by definition, so we're probably all damned, or at least that people are more probably wasting their sundays doing "The Wrong Things".


The whole thing about Pascal’s Wager is it’s a false dichotomy.

Ossai

[c4ts]

Pascal was great when it came to discovering hydraulics. Can't say the same for his religious theories. What a shame that God is not a fluid.

[Iacchus]

2. Wouldn't it be FUN to have someone around who REALLY subscribed to Pascal's Wager? You call him up at two in the morning..."Jacob, bro, it's me again. I hate to break it to you, but God just called me again...and said he was gonna send you and everyone you care about to hell after you die if you don't get out of bed and get me some burgers."

He'd have to do it, wouldn't he? In fact, he'd have to do basically everything you said as long as you swear that God just promised to do something unspeakably awful (and untestable) if he didn't.That would be in violation of the third commandment, however ... "taking the Lord's name in vain." And you should seriously consider whether you wish to breech one of God's commandments yourself. And so brings up the ninth commandment, "Don't promote falsity," which you would seriously be in danger of breeching as well. Not to mention that if you did this in order to take something from somebody that didn't belong to you, you would be in danger of breeching the eighth commandment, "Thou shalt not steal."

[EGarrett]

That would be in violation of the third commandment, however ... "taking the Lord's name in vain." And you should seriously consider whether you wish to breech one of God's commandments yourself. And so brings up the ninth commandment, "Don't promote falsity," which you would seriously be in danger of breeching as well. Not to mention that if you did this in order to take something from somebody that didn't belong to you, you would be in danger of breeching the eighth commandment, "Thou shalt not steal."

There are a lot of smart-assed replies I could make to this, but I'll just remind you that you're speaking to an atheist here, Ike.

What are your thoughts on Pascal's Wager? Do you subscribe to it? How do you think it holds up to some of the questions here?

I don't see how a true Wagerer could dodge his duty to get me burgers whenever I say so. After all, I'm simply swearing up and down that God spoke to me and said he had to do this. When you follow the laws of Christianity, you're simply following the word of another person from a long time ago who swore up and down that God spoke to him and said he had to do that...

[bruto]

There are a lot of smart-assed replies I could make to this, but I'll just remind you that you're speaking to an atheist here, Ike.

What are your thoughts on Pascal's Wager? Do you subscribe to it? How do you think it holds up to some of the questions here?

I don't see how a true Wagerer could dodge his duty to get me burgers whenever I say so. After all, I'm simply swearing up and down that God spoke to me and said he had to do this. When you follow the laws of Christianity, you're simply following the word of another person from a long time ago who swore up and down that God spoke to him and said he had to do that...

I have to disagree, as I stated before. The original wager was on the basic question of the existence of God. Owing to his own background, and the time he lived in, that translated into accepting the Roman Catholic faith, but that's not officially the content of the wager. It's theist versus atheist. Even if you dispute, as most of us do, either the odds or the validity of the wager, it's a far different proposition from the idea that you must then accept every crackpot notion that comes down the pike. Even the strictest Christian faith allows you some slack, and some room for personal judgment. Even for a down-the-line, dogmatic Catholic, your proposition is a bad bet, both as to the likelihood of its being true, and the likelihood of eternal damnation if I guess wrong. You make the same mistake Iamme and others seem to be making when they argue against skepticism, that once you've accepted any belief at all, you are living in some kind of blind faith about everything. Not all Christians are zombies.

[Iacchus]

I don't see how a true Wagerer could dodge his duty to get me burgers whenever I say so. After all, I'm simply swearing up and down that God spoke to me and said he had to do this. When you follow the laws of Christianity, you're simply following the word of another person from a long time ago who swore up and down that God spoke to him and said he had to do that...If it was simply a matter of taking another person's word for it, I would say that it is a complete and utter joke ... and, that in effect there is no God.

[EGarrett]

I have to disagree, as I stated before. The original wager was on the basic question of the existence of God. Owing to his own background, and the time he lived in, that translated into accepting the Roman Catholic faith, but that's not officially the content of the wager. It's theist versus atheist. Even if you dispute, as most of us do, either the odds or the validity of the wager, it's a far different proposition from the idea that you must then accept every crackpot notion that comes down the pike. Even the strictest Christian faith allows you some slack, and some room for personal judgment. Even for a down-the-line, dogmatic Catholic, your proposition is a bad bet, both as to the likelihood of its being true, and the likelihood of eternal damnation if I guess wrong. You make the same mistake Iamme and others seem to be making when they argue against skepticism, that once you've accepted any belief at all, you are living in some kind of blind faith about everything. Not all Christians are zombies.

Well, I'm simply trying to bring up the same logical question that I mentioned earlier.

I want to know why the Wager is allowed to count Christianity and not every other religion. If it claims to use logic, then shouldn't there be a reason for that?

And I use the hamburger example because I want to know WHY it's wrong. (and keep in mind that I'm questioning the pure logic of Pascal's Wager here, not necessarily Christianity itself.)

The only answer I can guess is that the stories of Christianity are far more popular than the stories of a single person. But of course, popularity doesn't make things correct. But of course, you could say that it could make one unprovable thing more likely to be correct than another. But if that's the case, why are you a Christian and not a Hindu?

You're now making me have the whole conversation with myself, but hopefully you can see how I'm trying to break the thing down...

(and I know we already had this exchange which is why I was directing it at Iacchus)

If it was simply a matter of taking another person's word for it, I would say that it is a complete and utter joke ... and, that in effect there is no God.
How is the word of a person on the phone in the middle of the night different than the word of the person who introduced you to Christianity? Or the word of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John? Why is one more valid than the other?

[bruto]

Well, I'm simply trying to bring up the same logical question that I mentioned earlier.

I want to know why the Wager is allowed to count Christianity and not every other religion. If it claims to use logic, then shouldn't there be a reason for that?

And I use the hamburger example because I want to know WHY it's wrong. (and keep in mind that I'm questioning the pure logic of Pascal's Wager here, not necessarily Christianity itself.)

The only answer I can guess is that the stories of Christianity are far more popular than the stories of a single person. But of course, popularity doesn't make things correct. But of course, you could say that it could make one unprovable thing more likely to be correct than another. But if that's the case, why are you a Christian and not a Hindu?

You're now making me have the whole conversation with myself, but hopefully you can see how I'm trying to break the thing down...

(and I know we already had this exchange which is why I was directing it at Iacchus)


How is the word of a person on the phone in the middle of the night different than the word of the person who introduced you to Christianity? Or the word of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John? Why is one more valid than the other?


In terms of pure logic, I agree the wager falls apart, but on face value, it's only the wager that God exists. In actual terms, because Pascal was a man of his time and place, he assumes that this must require that he adhere to the Catholic faith, which includes, of course a proviso that not believing in God is a grievous sin indeed. This is an obvious flaw in the wager, which makes it, to my mind at least, a foregone conclusion. The dice are loaded.

However, I still think your example fails. If you take the wager on its face value and say "belief in god," it entails no further faith and does not require him to believe in you. It assumes that any belief in any God is a better bet than atheism and stops there. All other bets must be made on their own odds. IN this situation, popularity might well be a significant factor. It certainly is in some things. Is your disbelief in flying saucers based only on scientific evidence, or is it not, at some level, also based on an assessment of who sees them and who doesn't?

If you take the wager at its obvious meaning for Pascal, as I believe he makes pretty explicit, that it means accepting the authority and rituals of the Roman Catholic Church, then with that package, he gets some benefits. The acceptance of authority, a hugely important aspect of most faiths, and especially of the Catholic one, puts the burden elsewhere. The Church gives you some rules on what you must believe and what you may doubt, and a whole slew of official procedures and authoritarian processes by which claims like your hypothetical one could be tested, including the very simple one of asking his priest, in his capacity as an agent of that supreme authority, what he thinks and accepting the priest's authority when he says you're full of BS. He's off the hook. The people who run this operation are not total fools, however odd you may think their doctrines. They must realize that the open trust and faith that they require of their followers runs the risk of credulity about other things as well, and as a result they are quick to assert their authority and to provide safeguards against what they claim as false beliefs, imposture, heresy, etc. Faith, at least of the sort we're talking about here, is not universal and open-ended. I repeat, to be a Christian you need not become a zombie.

[Iacchus]

How is the word of a person on the phone in the middle of the night different than the word of the person who introduced you to Christianity? Or the word of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John? Why is one more valid than the other?My belief in God is simply a matter for me to decide ... no one else. If there is a heaven and hell, then "I" am ultimately responsible for who I am. The responsibility falls directly upon my shoulders in other words. While at the same time, it doesn't preclude me from listening to what others have to say on the matter.

[EGarrett]

(Double Post)

[EGarrett]

In terms of pure logic, I agree the wager falls apart, but on face value, it's only the wager that God exists. In actual terms, because Pascal was a man of his time and place, he assumes that this must require that he adhere to the Catholic faith, which includes, of course a proviso that not believing in God is a grievous sin indeed. This is an obvious flaw in the wager, which makes it, to my mind at least, a foregone conclusion. The dice are loaded.
Yes. Especially because, when you get beyond face value, the laws of various religions are mutually exclusive. Simply believing in a God doesn't get you off the hook. You have to choose one. That's the point where I ask "Why Christianity?" But I've already said that, and I think we see eye to eye here.

However, I still think your example fails. If you take the wager on its face value and say "belief in god,"
For this particular example, I'm not taking it at face value. I'm challenging it as an actual logical argument for belief in God. From that standpoint, it seems that actually subscribing to that logic opens you up to things like that.

But if you don't use it as an actual logical argument, and you simply ignore or dismiss extreme cases like that, then you aren't really using logic. At that point, I feel that I've exposed the holes in it...which is all I want to do.

It certainly is in some things. Is your disbelief in flying saucers based only on scientific evidence, or is it not, at some level, also based on an assessment of who sees them and who doesn't?
I would bet against "flying saucers." But my reason isn't because the people sighting them seem stupid. Third World fishermen caught that fish that was believed to be extinct. I didn't disbelieve it because they were poor or uneducated. I simply waited until it was being reported all over the news with the pictures. Within a short time, it was. So I guess I tend more towards evidence.

If you take the wager at its obvious meaning for Pascal, as I believe he makes pretty explicit, that it means accepting the authority and rituals of the Roman Catholic Church,
I'm not challenging Pascal himself. Christianity might have been all he really knew in terms of religion. I'm questioning modern people who have Google and world news and still "choose" Christianity when using the Wager as an argument.

then with that package, he gets some benefits. The acceptance of authority, a hugely important aspect of most faiths, and especially of the Catholic one, puts the burden elsewhere. The Church gives you some rules on what you must believe and what you may doubt, and a whole slew of official procedures and authoritarian processes by which claims like your hypothetical one could be tested, including the very simple one of asking his priest, in his capacity as an agent of that supreme authority, what he thinks and accepting the priest's authority when he says you're full of BS. He's off the hook. The people who run this operation are not total fools, however odd you may think their doctrines. They must realize that the open trust and faith that they require of their followers runs the risk of credulity about other things as well, and as a result they are quick to assert their authority and to provide safeguards against what they claim as false beliefs, imposture, heresy, etc. Faith, at least of the sort we're talking about here, is not universal and open-ended. I repeat, to be a Christian you need not become a zombie.
So are you saying, basically, that Christianity is a lot more organized and thus seems more credible than a guy on the phone? I agree. But if organization and apparent believability are the criteria...there are a load of religions and government systems that are very organized and successful that Christians ignore. The logic seems to break down there as well.

And that's why I ask the hamburger question. I'm not saying "You should be getting me hamburgers!" I'm asking why they wouldn't, and then breaking the logic down from there...

My belief in God is simply a matter for me to decide ... no one else. If there is a heaven and hell, then "I" am ultimately responsible for who I am. The responsibility falls directly upon my shoulders in other words. Yet at the same time, it doesn't preclude me from listening to what others have to say on the matter.
So you don't consider it a matter of reason? I can at least understand that.

What do you think of Pascal's Wager? Do you think it's logical? Do you support other Christians who use that to justify their religion?

[Iacchus]

So you don't consider it a matter of reason? I can at least understand that.I'm not sure what you mean? It certainly does matter that I be able to reason it out for myself.

What do you think of Pascal's Wager? Do you think it's logical? Do you support other Christians who use that to justify their religion?I don't know? It all depends on whether you think God is looking for suckups or not?

[bruto]

Yes. Especially because, when you get beyond face value, the laws of various religions are mutually exclusive. Simply believing in a God doesn't get you off the hook. You have to choose one. That's the point where I ask "Why Christianity?" But I've already said that, and I think we see eye to eye here.


For this particular example, I'm not taking it at face value. I'm challenging it as an actual logical argument for belief in God. From that standpoint, it seems that actually subscribing to that logic opens you up to things like that.

But if you don't use it as an actual logical argument, and you simply ignore or dismiss extreme cases like that, then you aren't really using logic. At that point, I feel that I've exposed the holes in it...which is all I want to do.


I would bet against "flying saucers." But my reason isn't because the people sighting them seem stupid. Third World fishermen caught that fish that was believed to be extinct. I didn't disbelieve it because they were poor or uneducated. I simply waited until it was being reported all over the news with the pictures. Within a short time, it was. So I guess I tend more towards evidence.


I'm not challenging Pascal himself. Christianity might have been all he really knew in terms of religion. I'm questioning modern people who have Google and world news and still "choose" Christianity when using the Wager as an argument.


So are you saying, basically, that Christianity is a lot more organized and thus seems more credible than a guy on the phone? I agree. But if organization and apparent believability are the criteria...there are a load of religions and government systems that are very organized and successful that Christians ignore. The logic seems to break down there as well.

And that's why I ask the hamburger question. I'm not saying "You should be getting me hamburgers!" I'm asking why they wouldn't, and then breaking the logic down from there...


So you don't consider it a matter of reason? I can at least understand that.

What do you think of Pascal's Wager? Do you think it's logical? Do you support other Christians who use that to justify their religion?


I guess what I'm saying in a sense is that once Pascal has made his wager and accepted Catholicism, he doesn't have to get you burgers. If he made a different bet, and bet on some other religion that had no mechanism for evaluating claims that god wants him to get you burgers, he might be out of luck, but the wager is not a continuing one. He makes it once on the first set of odds, and need not continue wagering after that. His choice is for a religion with enough authority to exempt him from burger duty.

As for flying saucers, I wasn't thinking so much "stupid people see them," or the like, as evaluating the veracity of people who never see them. Probably a a poor example on my part.

I entirely agree that Pascal's wager is not a logically sound proposition for any modern Christian, and as I've said before I don't think it really was for Pascal either.

[gnome]

My belief in God is simply a matter for me to decide ... no one else. If there is a heaven and hell, then "I" am ultimately responsible for who I am. The responsibility falls directly upon my shoulders in other words. While at the same time, it doesn't preclude me from listening to what others have to say on the matter.

Is there some aspect of your belief in God that doesn't come in some part from something a human being told you? How have you decided who to listen to and who not to?

[EGarrett]

I'm not sure what you mean? It certainly does matter that I be able to reason it out for myself.

I asked you how you decide who you trust in regards to your faith, and you said it's just a matter for you to decide yourself.

That gave me the impression that you don't bother with reason when deciding your religious beliefs. Which I would understand.

But now you're saying do. I would ask more but I don't want to get too far off-topic.

I don't know? It all depends on whether you think God is looking for suckups or not?

Well, in your opinion, is God looking for suckups?

[Iacchus]

An example of a Zen koan from Alan Watts', Behold the Spirit (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search?search-type=ss&tag=dionysusforum-20&keyword=0394717619&mode=books) ...

In answer to a question about the meaning of Reality an old master simply held up his fly-whisk, and another master asked one of his monks to explain the action. "The master's idea," replied the monk, "was to elucidate the spiritual along with the material, to reveal truth by means of an objective reality." "Your understanding," said the master, "is all right as far as it goes. But why are you in such a hurry to make theories about it?" At this the monk asked, "What, then, will be your explanation?" The master held up his own fly-whisk.This is hilarious! :D

[BJQ87]

Originally Posted by c4ts :
Evidently this is not an all-powerful God as well, because an all-powerful God could restructure justice as he saw fit until it was just to create someone damned to eternal torment.


...just like an all-powerful God can change the laws of logic so that an unliftable rock becomes a logical possibility?!

You're saying that God's laws would be arbitrary; that if God says so, then it is ok to mutilate babies. And then goodness, or justice, no longer have any meaning.


Can God create an object to heavy for him to lift? Yes. Then can God lift it? Yes. But God does not do such a thing, he has the ability to do it, but he does not.

So then you ask how I could know God won't change the laws of logic? How could I know that God won't break promises, sin, cause himself not to exist?

Is not breaking his promises a limitation to power? no. Is not being able to sin a limitation to power? no. Is not being able to not exist a limitation to power? no.

On the other hand, it is my limitation of power to have the ability to break promises, sin, and not exist.

[Iacchus]

On the other hand, it is my limitation to power to have the ability to break promises, sin, and not exist.Good answer ... ;)

[EGarrett]

What's the point of the "koan" story? That reality exists outside of theories? If that's your point, just say so.

[Iacchus]

What's the point of the "koan" story? That reality exists outside of theories? If that's your point, just say so.Ah, but it would just be a theory now wouldn't it? ... Or, if it wasn't, how would I know? :)

[c4ts]

Can God create an object to heavy for him to lift? Yes. Then can God lift it? Yes. But God does not do such a thing, he has the ability to do it, but he does not.
You have no way of knowing that he does not, since anything God says, God can simultaneously contradict, and not let you know any of it. You forget that even though God does not appear to behave certain ways, you've already left the boundaries of logical discourse. It does no good to assume any kind of consistent behavoir when the entire concept of "consistency" no longer has meaning.

So then you ask how I could know God won't change the laws of logic? How could I know that God won't break promises, sin, cause himself not to exist?
Though you may think you have the answers and believe what others say on this subject (or you might not), breaking the confines of thought itself means you will never, ever, know, not now, not in a million years, not if God himself gave you all the answers, not even if you actually did know, or knew everything there is to know and everything that is not there to know. "Possibility," "impossibility," "contradiction," and other things no longer apply. Once the entire structure of knowledge becomes meaningless, anything anybody says goes, and pattern recognition no longer holds up. You're dealing with absurdity here.

Is not breaking his promises a limitation to power? no. Is not being able to sin a limitation to power? no. Is not being able to not exist a limitation to power? no. Since all ideas about what this sort of God is doing or is not doing hold no more weight than pure speculation, it doesn't matter if God doesn't do something. God might be doing it and not doing it at the same time, in the same sense, but preventing you from finding out, and it would appear to you no different.

On the other hand, it is my limitation to power to have the ability to break promises, sin, and not exist.
This isn't really about promises anyway. A God powerful beyond logic can keep promises by breaking them, and break promises by keeping them. If this isn't making any sense to you, that's because it shouldn't.

The solution is to say that things like justice and logic exist outside of and independantly from God, and therefore he is subject to them. Therefore, God can't do anything illogical (and therefore he is not omniscient), and he is capable of both just and unjust actions.

[BJQ87]

You have no way of knowing that he does not, since anything God says, God can simultaneously contradict, and not let you know any of it.

God's nature is to be all-powerfull, therefore he "decides" based upon his nature, because God cannot change. (not changing is in this case not a limitation to power either) If Gods nature is to be all-powerfull and he "decides" based upon that nature, then He "decides" the more powerfull route because he must in order to be all-powerfull. The more powerfull route is not to break promises, not to sin, or not to not exist. Rather than breaking promises, sinning, or not existing.

[EGarrett]

Ah, but it would just be a theory now wouldn't it? ... Or, if it wasn't, how would I know? :)
If your point has merit, you should be able to make it clearly. The only people that hide behind obscure quotations and unfunny jokes are the ones unwilling or unable to support their position.

[Iacchus]

If your point has merit, you should be able to make it clearly. The only people that hide behind obscure quotations and unfunny jokes are the ones unwilling or unable to support their position.There is no position, outside of the position that you assume.

[EGarrett]

There is no position, outside of the position that you assume.
Because if you have a position, you might be proven wrong. Mmhmm. I get it now.

What was your stance on Pascal's Wager again? Do you agree with it or not? What about other people who use it? Does God want suck-ups?

[Iacchus]

Because if you have a position, you might be proven wrong. Mmhmm. I get it now.

What was your stance on Pascal's Wager again? Do you agree with it or not? What about other people who use it? Does God want suck-ups?No, I don't claim to be fully read up on Pasca's wager. However, the way that you and some of the other folks around here present it, I think the idea is entirely foolish.

[ReFLeX]

God's nature is to be all-powerfull, therefore he "decides" based upon his nature, because God cannot change. (not changing is in this case not a limitation to power either) If Gods nature is to be all-powerfull and he "decides" based upon that nature, then He "decides" the more powerfull route because he must in order to be all-powerfull. The more powerfull route is not to break promises, not to sin, or not to not exist. Rather than breaking promises, sinning, or not existing.
You think a lot of the same things as Descartes, and as far as many of his theological points of view, he's in a tiny minority.

...you do not have the power to not exist. It's a little late for that, don't you think?

You can't just say, "this is not a limitation of power", you have to explain why it isn't.

[Iacchus]

So, how can one maintain consistency, in every single last detail, without the explicit power to do so?

[ReFLeX]

Why, by having the IMplicit power to do so!

...Iacchus, what the shell are you talking about?