A Return To Pascals Wager

[rachelbean]

Because they're talking about Pascal's Wager, and you're not

You must have gotten a bad grade in Philosophy 101, or most likely never took it at all.

Oh man, you can see right into my soul. I feel crushed.

You should, because you're not very bright for a self-proclaimed "nerd."

Bright enough not to give any credence to your opinions

[Cormac]

Pascal himself acknowledged the problem of not being able to control ones belief. His solution (in his pensées, along with the wager) is that we should act as if we believe (following the precepts of the church in other words) and strive to attain belief that way!

We're almost getting somewhere, but not really, since people here are not very smart, so I'll just say it.

I'm waiting for multiple things, but one of them is this:

I'm waiting for someone to say that you might as well believe, because it's at the very least, the "safest" option. So, you should just believe to play it safe for the long run.

Then, someone should be smart enough, but apparently no one is, to say that if there is indeed a god who is all-knowing, then he would know for a fact whether you really believe or are just faking it to play it safe.

So, your punitive god DOES care about whether or not you believe, regardless of behaviour...

Wow you are dumb.

My god? Huh?

Yeah, he "DOES care" because that's the whole fucking point of Pascal's Wager. That's the only thing that matters.

This is about the 5th time I've said this.

Well, you're the one who introduced a spurious point about behaviour modification.

I've only ever spoken about belief.

You're the one who argued that a punitive god isn't relevant.

Are you sure you understand Pascal's Wager?

Why are you so angry? This is just a discussion.

[Collector1337]

Well, you're the one who introduced a spurious point about behaviour modification.

Do you realize I'm talking to more than just you? If you actually read the thread you'd know why I said that.

I've only ever spoken about belief.

Almost, but not really.

If so, then why don't you answer my question?

You're the one who argued that a punitive god isn't relevant.

Yeah, pretty much. Only "punitive" about belief or lack thereof.

Are you sure you understand Pascal's Wager?

Yup. Not sure you do though.

Seems like you're insisting it has to be about Christian belief, because that's how Pascal originally framed it because of his times, but we can easily deconstruct it and just make it about whether having faith or not and the 4 possibilities of if there is a god and the hypothetical consequences.

Why are you so angry? This is just a discussion.

I'm not "angry." But it's painfully obvious you're not even reading the thread and are having trouble keeping up.

[Cormac]

Well, you're the one who introduced a spurious point about behaviour modification.

Do you realize I'm talking to more than just you? If you actually read the thread you'd know why I said that.

I've only ever spoken about belief.

Almost, but not really.

If so, then why don't you answer my question?

You're the one who argued that a punitive god isn't relevant.

Yeah, pretty much. Only "punitive" about belief or lack thereof.

Are you sure you understand Pascal's Wager?

Yup. Not sure you do though.

Seems like you're insisting it has to be about Christian belief, because that's how Pascal originally framed it because of his times, but we can easily deconstruct it and just make it about whether having faith or not and the 4 possibilities of if there is a god and the hypothetical consequences.

Why are you so angry? This is just a discussion.

I'm not "angry." But it's painfully obvious you're not even reading the thread and are having trouble keeping up.

Ah. Interesting. So you launch into hysterical tirades about how stupid and ignorant your interlocutors are, (implying that you are the opposite), using all sorts of emotion laden language, but you are not angry. I'll just leave that hanging there.

Given that you've mentioned that you think I've not read the thread, and I'm not keping up, can you please point out to me where I mentioned Christianity, and suggested I was making an argument therefrom?

[Tero]

It's fine to have intellectual discussions about god. But why would I then jump from the wager to the irrational guide to life that organized religion provides? I can reason all the issues without begging for help from invisible creatures.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

So, let's say there is a god, is that what you're going to tell him? That you have no power over your own beliefs and shit just happens to you?

You see how weak that is, right?

Did you have a single event you can pinpoint? If so, what was it?

In the unlikely event, that is exactly what I am going to tell him/her/it/them/whatever. After all, if there is a god, then lying to it would be a sin and she might get the idea into his head to punish me even more, no?

Why is that weak? I have no more control over my beliefs than I have over my hatred of aubergines and cabbage. Both are internal brain processes. Is it weak to admit that there are things beyond your conscious control? Or honest?

And yes, there was a single event. It was while watching a documentary about Rastafarians. Realising that they believed that Haile Selassie was actually god despite his own denials and were convinced that his death and funeral were staged put beliefs based on second/third-hand reports from 2000 years ago in perspective! It was an epiphanic moment. Could I have predicted the effect when I turned on the TV? No. But that documentary cemented my doubts into disbelief.

[HomerJay]

Then, someone should be smart enough, but apparently no one is, to say that if there is indeed a god who is all-knowing, then he would know for a fact whether you really believe or are just faking it to play it safe.

Pascal's only works with one very particular god though, belief is required but at the same time god doesn't know if it is genuine or not. So a bit of a weedy god who could probably be sweet talked into letting us in.

4 days and 5 pages ago.

[cronus]

God may know you are faking it but he may not give a tos about that if he considers you useful for his divine plan.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

God may know you are faking it but he may not give a tos about that if he considers you useful for his divine plan.

Pascal's contention was that faking it for long enough would eventually lead you to true belief. The rigorous logic behind that part of his argument is strangely missing.

[cronus]

God may know you are faking it but he may not give a tos about that if he considers you useful for his divine plan.

Pascal's contention was that faking it for long enough would eventually lead you to true belief. The rigorous logic behind that part of his argument is strangely missing.

Well, it was before Boolean algebra and he was surrounded by a different social set to anything contemporary. I'd be wary of applying modern standards or nuances on a world so different.

[hackenslash]

Thought it was worth another roll of the dice. Not sure what or who God is but I've lost nothing by believing in one? and isn't there a lot of space out there for God to hide whilst having total control over every aspect of everything?

The real problems with Pascal's nonsense are two assumptions, one of which is rooted in a misunderstanding of how belief actually works, and the other in a contradictory assessment of any putative deity's alleged attributes.

The first is that it assumes that belief is a matter of choice. I couldn't choose to believe in a deity any more than I could choose to believe that my penis is a foot long. The only degree to which choice can be applied is in a choice of whether or not to critically view the evidence, and even that is only ostensibly a choice.

The second is the assumption that (of course, dependent on your precise conception of deity) this allegedly omniscient entity wouldn't see straight through your attempt at deception, and therein lies the contradiction.

Pascal's wager is pure hucksterism and, worse, enjoins the potential wagee to engage in hucksterism. In short, it's bollocks that a 9 year-old can see through.

[cronus]

When the inquisition are burning witches at the stake outside maybe his 'nonsense' was coded down to earth practical advice on keeping alive another week?

[hackenslash]

Ah, longevity, eh? Yea, well. Life's for the living. The certitude of an afterlife is for those afraid of living.

[rainbow]

Ah, longevity, eh? Yea, well. Life's for the living. The certitude of an afterlife is for those afraid of living.

Sounds like Ratskep.

[hackenslash]

When the inquisition are burning witches at the stake outside maybe his 'nonsense' was coded down to earth practical advice on keeping alive another week?

I should also point out that he could simply have followed the later admonition 'fake it' if his concerns were earthly. I suspect that the burnings played little to no part in his 'thinking' on this. It wasn't a formula to avoid being burned by the inquisitors, but to avoid being burned by a different entity, merely asserted to exist.

No, this doesn't hold water.

Sounds like Ratskep.

Still nursing your pet obsession then? I'd just get over it if I were you.