Pascal's wager answered
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-06-2017, 07:09 PM
RE: Pascal's wager answered
(25-06-2017 10:51 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  Pascal's wager is just a hand-waving rationalization for what people already want to believe or are afraid not to believe. It gives philosophy a bad name.

While it can be argued that philosophy is the cornerstone of modern science, it is still outdated. Philosophy today is like insisting on using a rotary phone in an age of cell phones.

Brainstorming has it's merits, but no matter the claim or methodology, it means nothing until put under repeated testing and falsification with control groups and handed over to repeated peer review.

I am still a fan of Occams Razor, for example, but today, we dont stick to that and nothing else. We have, as far as scientific method goes, progressed beyond mere ideas, postulation.

I would not rely on, for example the "Socratic method" of antiquity.

The problem is with the word "philosophy" anything can be claimed to be.such.

I have heard not just Buddhists, but even Catholics and Jews dodge the fact they have a religion to only hide behind the word "philosophy".

Scientific method is beyond a philosophy, it is a tool.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Brian37's post
25-06-2017, 07:39 PM
RE: Pascal's wager answered
Pascal's Wager required that one chose a god who's too stupid to notice that you're faking it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Gawdzilla's post
25-06-2017, 07:45 PM
RE: Pascal's wager answered
(25-06-2017 10:03 AM)Brian37 Wrote:  Pascal's Wager is simply "Hedging your bets".

The problem with that can be summed up like horses in the Kentucky Derby.

In reality only one horse wins. So for Pascal's Wager to truly work you'd have to bet on all the horses at the same time as being the winner. Nobody in reality does that.

Horse 1. "What if you are wrong and Jesus is the winner"
Horse 2. "What if you are wrong and Allah is the winner"
Horse 3. "What if you are wrong and Yahweh is the winner"
Horse 4. "What if you are wrong and Vishnu is the winner"
Horse 5. "What if you are wrong and Buddha is the winner"
Horse 6. "What if you are wrong and Apollo is the winner".

If it is about playing it safe and making a safe bet "just in case" than to be safe you'd have to bet on all those options as being the winner at the same time. That is why the argument of Pascal's Wager does not work logically.

The other aspect of that fallacy is probability. Nobody treats claims as equally true, people put weight, when it comes to religion, on their personal bias.

In objective science however, on issues of probability, science does not care about fairness nor does it treat all claims as equal or even a 50/50 split. It speaks in terms of probability and likelyhood based on objective neutral prior data.
Better scratch horse # 5. Nobody thinks that Buddha is or ever was God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2017, 09:47 PM
RE: Pascal's wager answered
(25-06-2017 07:39 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  Pascal's Wager required that one chose a god who's too stupid to notice that you're faking it.

Some people have a really dumb god.
They think he doesn't know you're saying "Oh yes, I BEE-lieve", when you really don't. Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
26-06-2017, 03:12 AM
RE: Pascal's wager answered
What kind of God would be impressed with a pragmatic pretense of belief?

Edit: whoops, I got beaten to this Tongue

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
26-06-2017, 05:37 AM
RE: Pascal's wager answered
(25-06-2017 07:39 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  Pascal's Wager required that one chose a god who's too stupid to notice that you're faking it.

It actually doesn't. Pascal argued that it was better to believe and suggested that if you went through the motions and worked at it you would eventually begin to really believe. He wasn't promoting the idea of fooling god, he was promoting "fake it 'til you make it".

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
26-06-2017, 06:12 AM
RE: Pascal's wager answered
(26-06-2017 05:37 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(25-06-2017 07:39 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  Pascal's Wager required that one chose a god who's too stupid to notice that you're faking it.

It actually doesn't. Pascal argued that it was better to believe and suggested that if you went through the motions and worked at it you would eventually begin to really believe. He wasn't promoting the idea of fooling god, he was promoting "fake it 'til you make it".

That is still trying to fool god. If god is not a moron he has a memory. He will remember how you came to your belief.

Whats the difference between those who honestly cant believe in him, and those who dishonestly start to believe in him? It is certainly not the belief, but the intent. So (given that god does exist), he either values my atheist´ intellectual honesty, or he loves to get his ass licked in dishonesty, in which case he can kiss mine in return.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2017, 06:14 AM
RE: Pascal's wager answered
(26-06-2017 05:37 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(25-06-2017 07:39 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  Pascal's Wager required that one chose a god who's too stupid to notice that you're faking it.

It actually doesn't. Pascal argued that it was better to believe and suggested that if you went through the motions and worked at it you would eventually begin to really believe. He wasn't promoting the idea of fooling god, he was promoting "fake it 'til you make it".

Sorry, but you just said they should fake belief until it became actual belief.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Gawdzilla's post
26-06-2017, 10:20 AM
RE: Pascal's wager answered
(25-06-2017 07:09 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  While it can be argued that philosophy is the cornerstone of modern science, it is still outdated. Philosophy today is like insisting on using a rotary phone in an age of cell phones. ... Scientific method is beyond a philosophy, it is a tool.

Skepticism is a philosophy and a tool. Pragmatism is a philosophy and a tool. Rationalism is a philosophy and a tool. Empiricism is a philosophy and a tool. Naturalism is a philosophy and a tool. Determinism is a philosophy and a tool. Materialism is a philosophy and a tool. Functionalism is a philosophy and a tool. Hell even asceticism and hedonism are both a philosophy and a tool. Most philosophies can be viewed as tools and frameworks for investigation. Philosophy didn't just provide the formal foundations for science and then go into retirement. Philosophy informs, directs, constrains, and limits the boundaries of scientific investigation. Philosophy's ongoing contributions to AI and cognitive science is both fundamental and transformative. I think you misunderstand the role and current state of philosophy.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
26-06-2017, 02:59 PM
RE: Pascal's wager answered
(26-06-2017 06:14 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(26-06-2017 05:37 AM)unfogged Wrote:  It actually doesn't. Pascal argued that it was better to believe and suggested that if you went through the motions and worked at it you would eventually begin to really believe. He wasn't promoting the idea of fooling god, he was promoting "fake it 'til you make it".

Sorry, but you just said they should fake belief until it became actual belief.

Yes, that's Pascal's suggested way to become a believer.

(26-06-2017 06:12 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  That is still trying to fool god. If god is not a moron he has a memory. He will remember how you came to your belief.

Whats the difference between those who honestly cant believe in him, and those who dishonestly start to believe in him? It is certainly not the belief, but the intent. So (given that god does exist), he either values my atheist´ intellectual honesty, or he loves to get his ass licked in dishonesty, in which case he can kiss mine in return.

I don't think it's meant to imply that you are fooling god or that it is dishonest. The idea is that as long as you honestly believe when you die you get the goodies no matter how you came to the belief.

I didn't say any of it made sense; I was just noting that Pascal didn't suggest that you try to trick god, he suggested that you try to trick yourself.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: