Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: What should replace Pascal's wager in my opinion.
August 28, 2012 at 4:31 pm
(August 28, 2012 at 4:27 pm)Rayaan Wrote: (August 28, 2012 at 3:04 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Now of course, none of this is reason for people to believe in the religion, but it's a logical and reasonable reason to take it seriously if and only if one doesn't know it's wrong. Nah, I don't think Pascal's wager is a reasonable logic to use.
Pascal's wager can be used to argue for almost any religion and it doesn't explain why one religion has a greater likelihood of being the correct religion over the others. For example, a Christian might use this argument by only counting Christianity into the wager while excluding the other faiths which he doesn't believe in. That's the problem, and that's why Pascal's wager is not a rational argument even on a basic level. It seems to imply that our faith is just a type of gamble for salvation and that it is reliant on a type of calculation of risk and possibilities based on pre-conceived ideas.
I agree with what you have said but I'm not agreeing with pascal's wager, I'm saying it should be reformed to something on the lines of:
"If any of x religions are true, there is consequence, so either become sure one of them is right or sure all of them are wrong".
And that it shouldn't be a wager but rather just a motivation to see if a religion is true or false.
Posts: 5654
Threads: 133
Joined: May 10, 2011
Reputation:
69
RE: What should replace Pascal's wager in my opinion.
August 28, 2012 at 4:36 pm
That is equally as stupid. They still have to explain how they know their religion is right.
Posts: 3872
Threads: 39
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
43
RE: What should replace Pascal's wager in my opinion.
August 28, 2012 at 4:37 pm
(This post was last modified: August 28, 2012 at 4:37 pm by Ace Otana.)
(August 28, 2012 at 3:04 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Now of course, none of this is reason for people to believe in the religion, but it's a logical and reasonable reason to take it seriously if and only if one doesn't know it's wrong.
Pascal's wager works against you just as well. You could still end up in hell for not believing in the right god/religion. You could end up in hell for not doing something you're supposed to, or doing something that'll ensure a guaranteed place in hell.
It's all based on what if's. Not worth worrying about.
"Only one religion can be right, but they can all be wrong".
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: What should replace Pascal's wager in my opinion.
August 28, 2012 at 4:39 pm
(August 28, 2012 at 4:36 pm)frankiej Wrote: They still have to explain how they know their religion is right.
They would, and if we don't know it's wrong, we should listen to how they think they know it's right.
Posts: 3872
Threads: 39
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
43
RE: What should replace Pascal's wager in my opinion.
August 28, 2012 at 4:41 pm
(August 28, 2012 at 3:26 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I think the rational thing is to investigate the religion and become sure it's wrong if you are not going to follow it.
All 5,000 of them? Wouldn't it be more efficient and productive to simply...dismiss them as baseless assertions?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
Posts: 5654
Threads: 133
Joined: May 10, 2011
Reputation:
69
RE: What should replace Pascal's wager in my opinion.
August 28, 2012 at 4:41 pm
(August 28, 2012 at 4:39 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: (August 28, 2012 at 4:36 pm)frankiej Wrote: They still have to explain how they know their religion is right.
They would, and if we don't know it's wrong, we should listen to how they think they know it's right.
And that usually ends with them making a fool of themselves because it is pretty much something unknowable.
Posts: 1298
Threads: 42
Joined: January 2, 2012
Reputation:
32
RE: What should replace Pascal's wager in my opinion.
August 28, 2012 at 4:42 pm
(August 28, 2012 at 4:41 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: (August 28, 2012 at 3:26 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I think the rational thing is to investigate the religion and become sure it's wrong if you are not going to follow it.
All 5,000 of them? Wouldn't it be more efficient and productive to simply...dismiss them as baseless assertions?
Oh but he "knows" god exists, so he couldn't do that.
If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. - J.R.R Tolkien
Posts: 19788
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: What should replace Pascal's wager in my opinion.
August 28, 2012 at 4:45 pm
(August 28, 2012 at 4:22 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Here is sort of line of reasoning I've had for a long time. Greatness is founded in a living eternal reality, and like greatness can be perceived, so can this trait be seen as an essential trait of it. The foundation of all greatness cannot be other then ultimate greatness, for ultimate greatness is included in greatness (all together).
Once we derive ultimate greatness exists, we know it must have some essential attributes, for if it didn't have them, it would not be ultimately great.
These include being compassionate, merciful, loving, forbearing etc. How do we know this? Well through the greatness that has descended into our souls and is the foundation of our souls along with what said earlier. We been given some knowledge of what is essential to being ultimately great.
Ahhh, the idiotic and tiredsome fallacy of "If I arbitrarily assign a quantitative attribute to something, then that quantitaive attribute must exist as an real entity, and furthermore must include some instance where the attribute reach an as great a value as my leaking slippery mind can imagine".
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: What should replace Pascal's wager in my opinion.
August 28, 2012 at 4:49 pm
(This post was last modified: August 28, 2012 at 4:49 pm by Mystic.)
(August 28, 2012 at 4:42 pm)Tobie Wrote: (August 28, 2012 at 4:41 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: All 5,000 of them? Wouldn't it be more efficient and productive to simply...dismiss them as baseless assertions?
Oh but he "knows" god exists, so he couldn't do that.
I thought most of you were Agnostic Soft Atheists, so on what basis do you dismiss them?
I dismiss religions on individual basis. I am also inclined to believe no religions are revealed because of absence of revelation today backed up by proofs.
For example, if God wanted to guide us, he could easily descend a billion books from the sky all over the world, books that could not be destroyed or burned or changed.
He could easily do this.
The fact he doesn't go out his way to guide us, tells me he wants us to think for ourselves.
Also having thought things through, I've realized Deism shows more benevolence and care of a Creator, then sending revelations, because the former emphasizes on personal growth while the latter will make us sheep/slaves and I think God is not the dictator type of leader.
Posts: 19788
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: What should replace Pascal's wager in my opinion.
August 28, 2012 at 4:51 pm
On the basis of we are "softly" agnostic about the spaghetti monster, but we would never conduct ourselves in earnest as if he exists.
|
