Originally posted by Mindship
I tend to agree, as long as one realizes that one is believing in believing in "God" because one sees more benefit than in not believing. IMO, this seems to be the next best choice, given the absence of proof.I think Pascal meant well, but he was a devout Christian. Not exactly neutral on the topic.
Sure, but the statement generally doesn't make sense to non-believers because you can't voluntarily undertake a belief that you don't have. I've never seen it used as an argument except when it's trotted out by theists in a weak attempt to convert or convince.
Even your belief in belief, while seemingly more reasonable, is still something that can't be adopted voluntarily. If I, or anyone, doesn't believe in something, no amount of bet-hedging is going to change that. Saying "we don't know, so I believe in something" is fine, but "we don't know, and I don't believe" is just as intellectually tenable, and switching to the first is every bit as impossible for non-believers as voluntarily switching to abject theism. So even yours is the same argument, just less distinct in what you choose to believe in.
Originally posted by Deja~vu
Just as Darwin is the opposite. Yet, there are accounts that on his death bed prayed for salvation. It's all opinion, theory and fear.
Death-bed conversion stories exist for anyone whose words opposed theism. Most are folk tales to inspire belief, and aren't corroborated with any sort of evidence.
Originally posted by DigiMark007I agree. Also, Pascal was attempting to convert, basically through "benign intimidation."
Even your belief in belief, while seemingly more reasonable, is still something that can't be adopted voluntarily. If I, or anyone, doesn't believe in something, no amount of bet-hedging is going to change that. Saying "we don't know, so I believe in something" is fine, but "we don't know, and I don't believe" is just as intellectually tenable, and switching to the first is every bit as impossible for non-believers as voluntarily switching to abject theism.
In neutral form, I simply see it as stating the obvious (eg, "If the empirical map is right, after death no one will ever know."😉 It is not meant to flip a switch. I believe this conclusion has to have meaning to the person in terms of study, time and effort. This is why many of us believe what we believe.
Certainly, I don't think anyone's ever been convinced of anything here at KMC. 😉
Originally posted by Deja~vu
Possibly to cover all the bases? Possibly guilt? Possibly fiction all together, yet there are written accounts..
Are these verified? Where are the accounts from? Do you think its a coincidence that more accounts exist for Darwin and other non-religious figureheads than anyone else? And, perhaps most importantly, even if Darwin had a deathbed conversion (no one should seriously believe that he did) does it invalidate his work, and what that work implies about the universe?
These stories are rhetoric to undermine argument against theism. Richard Dawkins, for example, has considered some form of official recording of his last moments to avoid inevitable rumors to this affect. The same is said of Aquinas, his supposed last request being to burn all of his writings because "It is all straw..." No verification, just a convenient anecdote to undermine some of Christianity's most important writings.
Originally posted by Mindship
I agree. Also, Pascal was attempting to convert, basically through "benign intimidation."In neutral form, I simply see it as stating the obvious (eg, "If the empirical map is right, after death no one will ever know."😉 It is not meant to flip a switch. I believe this conclusion has to have meaning to the person in terms of study, time and effort. This is why many of us believe what we believe.
Certainly, I don't think anyone's ever been convinced of anything here at KMC. 😉
You'd be surprised. I was a devout Christian when I joined KMC. And while KMC wasn't the driving influence behind the shift, it certainly greatly aided it. Those with open minds can and do gain knowledge here, or at least learn to better elucidate our beliefs.
Anyway, I'm on record as saying there's nothing wrong with a "we don't know" agnosticism. Any intervening deity can be tested for and falsified, so if you go too far beyond that you get into tricky empirical ground. So with current knowledge, about the furthest toward theism that empirical study would advocate is the type of agnosticism you're talking about....with a creator who is essentially unknowable since there is no intervention beyond the creation point.
The fact that some take such truths and don't believe in such a deity (like myself) is equally as likely as those who do (yourself). Neither is verifiable, but both are equally as logical. I'd argue non-belief is more logical due to the causal improbability of such a creating force, but I won't press the issue. Such a deity, I would assume, wouldn't be subject to placing importance on Pascal's Wager, and those that believe because of such reasoning. So the Wager is a worthless scare tactic, imo. Your belief is fine, but not because of reasons relating to the Wager.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
This is a simplified version of Pascal's Wager, and not a very good argument for belief.
..well i don't know about Pascal ..or his Wager, but this is a question i have asked myself and many for quite a while.
Sort of, giving the GOD the benefit of the doubt, because u cant prove otherwise.
Originally posted by DigiMark007You do have a point here. There was a time I didn't think Captain America was sooo able to kick Spidey's butt. 😛
You'd be surprised. I was a devout Christian when I joined KMC. And while KMC wasn't the driving influence behind the shift, it certainly greatly aided it. Those with open minds can and do gain knowledge here, or at least learn to better elucidate our beliefs.
I'd argue non-belief is more logical due to the causal improbability of such a creating force...Actually, I wouldn't even argue with you on this. Evidence to date (highly anecdotal and sketchy) definitely favors the atheist position, whilst the theist has their work cut out for them.
For what it's worth, brevity of wording likely also clouded the issue. Juk3n's wording -- "isn't it just worth it to believe?" (and my response) -- might've been better expressed as (eg), "isn't it worth considering the option?"
Originally posted by Juk3nPascal's Wager...
..well i don't know about Pascal ..or his Wager, but this is a question i have asked myself and many for quite a while.
As I see it, the problem with the Wager is twofold: 1. Pascal was a devout Christian (ie, he believed in the Christian God), thus making him biased in his premises and conclusions; and 2. It is an attempt to convert/convince (benign intimidation propped up with logic); and as Digi rightfully pointed out, belief is not something one can turn on and off, though one can choose to look more carefully at a given option (please note, neither am I necessarily implying that you were looking to convert/convince).
Sort of, giving the GOD the benefit of the doubt, because u cant prove otherwise.I agree (contingent, of course, on what you mean by "God," but we can let that go for the moment). It should also be acknowledged, IMO, that "wiggle room" is not on equal footing with evidence. One might best regard it as an invitation to speculate or explore, especially if accompanied by critical thinking.
Originally posted by Juk3n
..well i don't know about Pascal ..or his Wager, but this is a question i have asked myself and many for quite a while.Sort of, giving the GOD the benefit of the doubt, because u cant prove otherwise.
The primary hole in that argument is that it can be applied to anything. By the logic provided in Pascal's Wager (which you did summarize) it's also worth giving me or Digi or your great-uncle Rupert or Cthulhu the benefit of the doubt about being God.
Nonetheless, I agree that leaving some concept of the possibility of a God existing is a reasonable approach to have.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The primary hole in that argument is that it can be applied to anything. By the logic provided in Pascal's Wager (which you did summarize) it's also worth giving me or Digi or your great-uncle Rupert or Cthulhu the benefit of the doubt about being God.Nonetheless, I agree that leaving some concept of the possibility of a God existing is a reasonable approach to have.
Aye, but thats just it, if you or uncle rupert made such a claim, and i "believed" or "gave you the benefit of the doubt" would i still not be entitled to the same reward?
if anyone "claimed" to be THE GOD - lets say the christian GOD, i am kind of under the impression that its The Belief itself that is importnt, not the object of the belief.
hail Uncle Rupert?
Originally posted by Juk3n
Aye, but thats just it, if you or uncle rupert made such a claim, and i "believed" or "gave you the benefit of the doubt" would i still not be entitled to the same reward?if anyone "claimed" to be THE GOD - lets say the christian GOD, i am kind of under the impression that its The Belief itself that is importnt, not the object of the belief.
hail Uncle Rupert?
Most faiths in which the only requirement for salvation is faith require you to believe in their God to get it.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The primary hole in that argument is that it can be applied to anything. By the logic provided in Pascal's Wager (which you did summarize) it's also worth giving me or Digi or your great-uncle Rupert or Cthulhu the benefit of the doubt about being God.Nonetheless, I agree that leaving some concept of the possibility of a God existing is a reasonable approach to have.
Especially the part about Digi.
wink
More seriously, leaving open the possibility of God is something nearly everyone does, myself included. But "being open-minded" doesn't mean believing something without evidence...it means being receptive to new information that may change one's way of thinking. I'm fine with it as a possibility. I just don't currently believe in that possibility. Like any scientific truth, and like all belief should be, it is provisional and subject to change based upon new evidence....not rigid and dogmatic.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Most faiths in which the only requirement for salvation is faith require you to believe in their God to get it.
Too true. Faith alone is not enough...it depends where you place it. If we take Pascal's Wager seriously, we'd have to "believe" in the God of Islam, and Christianity, and various Christian sects, and Jehovah, and....etc. etc. It's an insidious meme that supports itself by advocating faith in a specific deity.
Originally posted by Mindship
Actually, I wouldn't even argue with you on this. Evidence to date (highly anecdotal and sketchy) definitely favors the atheist position, whilst the theist has their work cut out for them.For what it's worth, brevity of wording likely also clouded the issue. Juk3n's wording -- "isn't it just worth it to believe?" (and my response) -- might've been better expressed as (eg), "isn't it worth considering the option?"
Consideration, sure. No problem there. But once it is considered, if belief still does not exist, both Pascal's Wager and considering agnosticism aren't requirements of a logical approach.
Originally posted by Mindship
Logic is just a means toward an ends.
K, no argument. I just stated that the Wager doesn't necessitate belief from a logical perspective. At best, consideration of belief like you mentioned earlier. But once considered, the argument loses its teeth and becomes a worthless scare tactic toward those who cannot change beliefs on a whim.
Originally posted by DigiMark007I take it you didn't like my "Benign intimidation propped up with logic" (from my own critique of the Wager a few posts back). And here I thought I'd turned a clever phrase.
K, no argument. I just stated that the Wager doesn't necessitate belief from a logical perspective. At best, consideration of belief like you mentioned earlier. But once considered, the argument loses its teeth and becomes a worthless scare tactic toward those who cannot change beliefs on a whim.
That's why I prefer something like, "If the empirical map is right, no one will ever know". It doesn't threaten divine retribution, it doesn't promise heavenly paradise. It's just stating the obvious. One's response to this will likely reflect, more than anything, the belief system already in place as well as that person's philosophical objective.
Originally posted by Mindship
I take it you didn't like my "Benign intimidation propped up with logic" (from my own critique of the Wager a few posts back). And here I thought I'd turned a clever phrase.That's why I prefer something like, "If the empirical map is right, no one will ever know". It doesn't threaten divine retribution, it doesn't promise heavenly paradise. It's just stating the obvious. One's response to this will likely reflect, more than anything, the belief system already in place as well as that person's philosophical objective.
I liked it...just didn't get the chance to quote it.
😉
Anyway, I prefer to think of it as employing an Occam's Razor argument to the situation. Go as far as you can logically (which you did in your brief summary), and when you cannot determine something any further, assume the least fantastic explanation, which in this case means a universe via strictly physical causes, which we know to be possible. If a God exists, we've been given no way of knowing it empirically, so if one does exist it is unknowable. One may exist, but the most reasonable response is that one does not. It is not the only reasonable response, mind you, but imo the most.
Like seeing an egg near Loch Ness Lake, and being told either a bird laid it or the Loch Ness Monster. For the sake of the argument it never hatches. Monster? I can't disprove it. But it's far more likely that a bird did.
...