RE: Adopting Religion for fear of what may transpire post death?
November 27, 2011 at 6:16 pm
(This post was last modified: November 27, 2011 at 6:20 pm by mayor of simpleton.)
Pascal's Wager (Gambit) has a few flaws that are perhaps worth pointing out. First, it might be a good idea to see how it is set up in a formal construct...
1. Either God exists or God doesn't exist.
2. A person can either believe that God exists or believe that God doesn't exist(from 1).
3. If God exists and you believe, you receive eternal salvation.
4. If God exists and you don't believe, you receive eternal damnation.
5. If God doesn't exist and you believe, you've been duped, have wasted time in religious observance, and have missed out on decadent enjoyments.
6. If God doesn't exist, and you don't believe, then you have avoided a false belief.
7. You have much more to gain by believing in God than not believing in him, and much more to lose by not believing in God than believing in him (from, 3, 4, 5, & 6)
8. It is more rational to believe that God exists than to believe that he doesn't exist (from 7).
God exists
Believe = Eternal salvation
Don't Believe = Eternal damnation
God doesn't exist
Believe = You've been duped, missed out on some sins
Don't Believe = You got it right
First, the god/deity in question would have to be a megalomanic. Very petty, lacking mercy and a bit of an egomanic. Considering that this god/deity created people who don't see fit to believe in him, then turn around and not forgiving them for being made as such is the attitude of a S.O.B. and a big time 'prick'.
Second, if this god/deity in question is supposed to be all knowing and thus and such, do you really suppose that 'claiming' a belief in him for the sake of "cheap fire insurance" would get past him? For that matter, if it did, what type of "omni-whatever supergod" is this? I suppose it's a case of one being hopful that god is a gullible sap.
“ Suppose there is a god who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. . .Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven — unless God wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy. ” —Richard Carrier, The End of Pascal's Wager: Only Nontheists Go to Heaven
Another point is that a lot of what Pascal Wagner deals with is probability. It is presented like a 50/50 chance. uuuhhh... is it really?
This is a quote from Rebbecca Goldstein that might make a bit more sense of this problem...
"If the probability of God's existence (ascertained by other means) is infinitesimal, then even if the cost of not believing in him is high, the overall expectation may not make it worthwhile to choose the "believe" row (after all, we take many other risks in life with severe possible costs but low probabilities, such as boarding an airplane). One can see how this invalidates Pascal's Wager by considering similar wagers. Say I told you that a fire-breathing dragon has moved into the next apartment and that unless you set out a bowl of marshmallows for him every night he will force his way into your apartment and roast you to a crisp. According to Pascal's wager, you should leave out the marshmallows. Of course you don't, even though you are taking a terrible risk in choosing not to believe in the dragon, because you don't assign a high enough probability to the dragon's existence to justify even the small inconvenience."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_fr...evelations
This link might be of help in understanding this particular fallacy.
Meow!
GREG
1. Either God exists or God doesn't exist.
2. A person can either believe that God exists or believe that God doesn't exist(from 1).
3. If God exists and you believe, you receive eternal salvation.
4. If God exists and you don't believe, you receive eternal damnation.
5. If God doesn't exist and you believe, you've been duped, have wasted time in religious observance, and have missed out on decadent enjoyments.
6. If God doesn't exist, and you don't believe, then you have avoided a false belief.
7. You have much more to gain by believing in God than not believing in him, and much more to lose by not believing in God than believing in him (from, 3, 4, 5, & 6)
8. It is more rational to believe that God exists than to believe that he doesn't exist (from 7).
God exists
Believe = Eternal salvation
Don't Believe = Eternal damnation
God doesn't exist
Believe = You've been duped, missed out on some sins
Don't Believe = You got it right
First, the god/deity in question would have to be a megalomanic. Very petty, lacking mercy and a bit of an egomanic. Considering that this god/deity created people who don't see fit to believe in him, then turn around and not forgiving them for being made as such is the attitude of a S.O.B. and a big time 'prick'.
Second, if this god/deity in question is supposed to be all knowing and thus and such, do you really suppose that 'claiming' a belief in him for the sake of "cheap fire insurance" would get past him? For that matter, if it did, what type of "omni-whatever supergod" is this? I suppose it's a case of one being hopful that god is a gullible sap.
“ Suppose there is a god who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. . .Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven — unless God wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy. ” —Richard Carrier, The End of Pascal's Wager: Only Nontheists Go to Heaven
Another point is that a lot of what Pascal Wagner deals with is probability. It is presented like a 50/50 chance. uuuhhh... is it really?
This is a quote from Rebbecca Goldstein that might make a bit more sense of this problem...
"If the probability of God's existence (ascertained by other means) is infinitesimal, then even if the cost of not believing in him is high, the overall expectation may not make it worthwhile to choose the "believe" row (after all, we take many other risks in life with severe possible costs but low probabilities, such as boarding an airplane). One can see how this invalidates Pascal's Wager by considering similar wagers. Say I told you that a fire-breathing dragon has moved into the next apartment and that unless you set out a bowl of marshmallows for him every night he will force his way into your apartment and roast you to a crisp. According to Pascal's wager, you should leave out the marshmallows. Of course you don't, even though you are taking a terrible risk in choosing not to believe in the dragon, because you don't assign a high enough probability to the dragon's existence to justify even the small inconvenience."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_fr...evelations
This link might be of help in understanding this particular fallacy.
Meow!
GREG
Moral is as moral does and as moral wishes it all too be. - MoS
The absence of all empirical evidence for the necessity of intuitive X existing is evidence against the necessary empirical existence of intuitive X - MoS (variation of 180proof)
Athesim is not a system of belief, but rather a single answer to a single question. It is the designation applied by theists to those who do not share their assumption that a god/deity exists. - MoS
I am not one to attribute godlike qualities to things that I am unable to understand. I may never be in the position to understand certain things, but I am not about to create an anthropomorphic deity out of my short-commings. I wish not to errect a monument to my own personal ignorace and demand that others worship this proxy of ego. - MoS
The absence of all empirical evidence for the necessity of intuitive X existing is evidence against the necessary empirical existence of intuitive X - MoS (variation of 180proof)
Athesim is not a system of belief, but rather a single answer to a single question. It is the designation applied by theists to those who do not share their assumption that a god/deity exists. - MoS
I am not one to attribute godlike qualities to things that I am unable to understand. I may never be in the position to understand certain things, but I am not about to create an anthropomorphic deity out of my short-commings. I wish not to errect a monument to my own personal ignorace and demand that others worship this proxy of ego. - MoS
