Pascal's Wager

Beholderess

Seriously, it is one of the worst arguments for religion, and also one of the most disrespectful towards it. Yet this one often heard various theists cite it, or variations thereof, and that is what surprises this one. Not only an argument is ineffective, but even if - if - it was effective, do they really want people converting becase of such a mercenary attitude? Do they really think that their own god/s is/are so stupid as to accept those who see belief as nothing but "get out of jail free" card? Bah, and they call atheists disrespectful!=)

glennmagusharvey

Huh, just read up on it.

He assumes that the possible outcomes are "Abrahamic God exists" and "Abrahamic God doesn't exist", while not accounting for any other religions.  Fail.

Beholderess

Fail indeed. If other possibilities are accounted for, then logically, one should pick a religion that has the worst punishment for lack of belief=)

But even if one ends up choosing the "correct" one (assuming it for a sake of argument), do believers really think that their god is going to be pleased with that kind of worshipper?

Again, it's not only the fail of argument itself that bugs this one, but that there are some religious people who use it (usually in attempt to persuade atheists).

DYRE

Yeah, Pascal's Wager is a horrible, horrible argument.  The basic idea of "if there's no negative consequences to some action, and there's any chance of a positive outcome, then taking the action is a good choice" is fairly sound, but when used in the context of religion, and in particular when used the way it is, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Gelzo

There's arguably a negative consequence to every action.

Khwarizmi

For example, an irrational belief is sub-optimal because it may cause one to behave in a way that is dangerous on account of a faulty assumption about the way the world works.

I dislike Pascal's Wager.  I don't think it's rational, but I keep hearing it whenever religion is being debated.

Myrmidon

Pascal recommended that you pretend to be a devout Christian until pretending causes you to actually become one. 

Khwarizmi

Unless I'm missing something, that seems like it would only make sense if one assumes that being a Christian is automatically preferable to not being one.

Myrmidon

Nah, I'm just responding to the common criticism that, even if it's demonstrated that believing in God is advantageous, it won't make you actually believe when you know that.

Not there aren't other problems with the argument, as other people have stated.

glennmagusharvey

Pascal's Wager basically assumes it's Christianity or bust.

Which is fine and dandy for some Christians when they debate religion with people, because in their minds, Christianity is indeed the only (true) religion.

Chagen

/is a rationalist

/believes in Pascal's Wager

Ponicalica

Define «rationalist», Chagen.

Chagen

Someone who believes that rational and logical thought is preferable to blind emotion. Tends to be skeptical. Promotes Reason as superior to non-logical (such as tradition) thought.

Those are the things I believe at least.

Vorpy

Not going to comment on this.

Khwarizmi

I'll believe there's a rational justification for Pascal's Wager when I hear one.  Not before.

Myrmidon

You know, Pascal said and did other things.

Chagen

I actually came to the conclusion through my own thought, and didn't know Pascal did it too till way later. It seemed logical to me.

Khwarizmi

^^ Yup: pressure, mathematics, inventing the calculator, probably other stuff too.

But everybody did lots of things, and this thread is about one specific thing that Pascal did.

snowbull

Nobody gives a shit about triangles, Myr. I'm sorry. :P

Nyktos

Pascal didn't even invent Pascal's Triangle.

Myrmidon

You don't even know the shit about tennis and reeds and infinity, do you?

Gelzo

I can't facepalm hard enough at Chagen right now.

And for the record, I didn't know about Pascal's Wager until I heard someone complain about how it wasn't the only thing he did. I always associated him with mathematics.

RedEyedAbyss

Makes me wonder what everyone would think of Newton and his Bible obsession.

Myrmidon

Guys, don't be jerks to Chagen. I thought it was logical for a while too.

Ponicalica

I actually wasn't trying to be a jerk that time, just asking for clarification, since «rationalist» can mean a lot of different things, and I figured that Chagen probably wouldn't be a big fan of Eliezer Yudkowsky.

Myrmidon

I was talking to Gelzo and Vorpy.

Gelzo

^^^^Oh yeah, didn't he credit a lot of his inspiration to his work translating the bible?

Geniuses can be kind of nutty sometimes. I don't think I'll ever understand some of Einstein's objections to what became modern theory.

^Sorry, then. I just got a little pissed that he didn't provide any justification for his opinion and declared himself rational.

Ponicalica

Einstein basically wanted a world that was deterministic; he didn't feel comfortable with the central role that randomness plays in quantum theory.

Also, the Copenhagen interpretation is somewhat ambiguous and confusing.

Chagen

and I figured that Chagen probably wouldn't be a big fan of Eliezer Yudkowsky.

Wikipedia'd him, found nothing unusual but don't have enough data to make an accurate opinion of him. What did he do?

Oh yeah, didn't he credit a lot of his inspiration to his work translating the bible?

Geniuses can be kind of nutty sometimes.

Oh no! How dare we have a Christian Genius! [sarcasm]Because AllChristiansAreAntiScience, of course[/sarcasm]

Ponicalica

With regards to Newton, please note that he believed that his alchemy would end up being more famous than his physics or calculus.

Gelzo

I wasn't referring to his Christianity as what made him nutty (though admittedly sometimes religion resembles insanity to me), but rather, the notion that the bible had any relevance to his problems in physics.

But you should probably get comfortable at some point with the idea that academia is proportionally a lot more secular.