|
|
General Discussion
Started by NickOtani at 06-07-2006 9:05 PM. Topic has 4 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 06-07-2006, 9:05 PM
|
NickOtani
Joined on 04-21-2006
Posts 323
|
|
|
|
Pascal’s Wager concludes that it is a safe bet to believe in God and heaven and hell and all the Biblical stuff. If all is false, if there is no God and no heaven and hell, then the believer is no worse off than the non-believer, according to Pascal. Both will be dead, and that will be that. However, if God does exist, then the believer has everything to gain, and the non-believer has everything to lose. The believer, according to this way of looking at things, really has nothing to lose and everything to gain, while the nonbeliever has nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Problems:
First, it is important to note that this is not an argument or proof for the existence of God. It makes no knowledge claim. It is purported to be a reason for believing. That is all.
Second, most religious people who believe in God authentically do not respect people who choose to believe because it is a safe bet. It’s like marrying for money and not for love. Gamboling and betting is generally frowned upon by religious people, and believing just to insure one’s reward of salvation is not an authentic reason for believing. It is phony.
Third, there are negative consequences to subjugating one’s self to a supreme being which doesn’t exist and positive things about living for one’s self authentically, standing on one’s own two feet. When it is factored in that living one’s own life freely and participating in creating one’s own nature is preferable to living as an object of someone else’s design, it is no longer the case that the believer is better off, or no worse off, than the non-believer.
Bis bald,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
08-08-2006, 12:16 AM
|
keapponlaffin
Joined on 03-21-2006
Posts 67
|
|
|
|
|
Yah... I always detested Pascal's Wager. In my mind, it seems to run just the opposite..
Two possibilities, god existing or god not existing. Fair enough as a base? Great..
If god doesn't exist, I'm perfectly content living out my life and dying (ceasing to exist) without ever worrying about religion. I think religion can help some people in some contexts, but I am most certainly not one of those people. Anyone who has rationally ceased to believe in god and has good reason not to is pathetically doomed to misery if they try to force themselves into believing something they don't hold to be true. Its a life of contradictions..
Second, if god does exist, I still shouldn't believe. This seems odd on the surface, perhaps, let me explain. I am not a believer. Furthermore, I have good reason not to believe, and have not found any really compelling arguments for the existence of god. My atheism and agnosticism are a product of honest deliberation, and a long process of reasoning. continuing...
If god exists, god either exists as a benevolent god, or a god that is not benevolent? I think I'm still being fair here, allowing in all possible worlds..
If god is benevolent (and just righteous etc, everything the christians say), then god ought to A) respect my sincerity and honest attempts to find truth, and B) disdain and punish me for lying to myself, the people around me, and him.
If god is not a decent god, not benevolent, etc... well... then all bets are off, and I really have no interest in appeasing such a being, or spending eternity with the jerk.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2006, 2:30 PM
|
A is A is A..
Joined on 08-11-2006
Posts 1
|
|
|
|
|
There is an even bigger problem (at least from an objectivist point of view) with Pascal's Wager that seems to be missed by most. The statement "If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing" is inherently flawed.
If you are an unswaying religionist, you would despise this world, reject material desires, and spend your life preparing for the next level of existence. Therefore, your life would be wasted in the pursuit of a future reward which does not exist. Kind of like giving up the $500 for a box of shredded newspaper on "Let's Make a Deal".
If you (like I suspect most proclaimed religionists) publicly espouse the tenets of your belief system, but privately struggle with the contradiction, you must cheat your chosen system in an attempt to lead a semi-fruitful life in this reality. You then lead a life of shame, guilt, evasion, and quiet desperation. In this case, you are a double loser playing a rigged game. If God does exist, will you as a life-long hypocrite be allowed into "heaven? Not likely, according to religious doctrine. If God does not exist, once again you have lived a pointless life for no prospect of future reward.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
08-13-2006, 11:18 PM
|
keapponlaffin
Joined on 03-21-2006
Posts 67
|
|
|
|
|
There is big problem with what you wrote, A is A...
For starters, I appreciate your zeal and conviction on the subject, and agree with you in your conclusions.
The problem is, simply put, an error in logic (or in your empirical claims).
1. Not all "unswaying religionists" despise this world. Perhaps you could write up a proof for that claim? If the justification isn't important, then don't worry about it.
2. What evidence do you have to support the notion that most religious people are struggling with internal contradictions? Most spiritual or religious people I know don't struggle with contradictions at all, and are in a perfect state of blissful ignorance of any contradictions they hold (as are most other people, including objectivists).
These problems aside, I agree with you completely.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2006, 3:12 AM
|
marc
Joined on 10-22-2006
Posts 11
|
|
|
|
Pascal is wrong. If he is right I guess I better go buy some garlic and silver bullets too in case vampires exist. At least that would involve much less moral compromise. The god damned christian god, great guy, kills a bunch of egyptian children because of what their parents king did. Yeah, why not get on board with that? Nothing like an eternity in heaven discussing the virtues of terrorism specifically targetting children. I would set myself on fire.
And if you get on board with one religion, thats just one lottery ticket of many. And it involves lots of time considering something you have no evidence exists and whos communications are highly suspect of alteration and inaccuracy. Then, even if you had proven communications, you abandon the moral process. You need to go through that process yourself or else it is artificial.
I choose to declare that worship is evil. God may or may not exist. It does not concern me. If some much greater force attacks me for behaving rationally and openly there is not much I can do. I would not even go as far as admiring a god that was proven to exist to me, because his virtue would simply be the product of his defined nature and not any effort or trials and tribulations. I would look on a god with a combination of curiousity and pity. Fallability, error, and process are a value to me. I like earning things. Even barry bonds probably required 2/3 the usual effort to hit a homer on steroids. God would have infinite power with no effort and couldnt truly take any credit for anything so he would have no way to prove himself in any way. His only proof is force, not legitimate effort.
In general, my ultimate comfort is in my convictions. I cannot compromise them for the sake of some chance threat.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
The Atlas... » Ayn Rand's Idea... » General Discuss... » Re: Pascal's Wager
|
|
|
|