RE: Reverse Pascals Wager
August 20, 2010 at 3:43 pm
(This post was last modified: August 20, 2010 at 3:51 pm by Entropist.)
What I find amusing about Pascal's so-called wager is it reduces faith (which is presumably central to Christianity) to a mere bet. Religion, in the end, is reduced to a bunch of threats (with either empty claims, or physical and psychological violence).
But also, what would be analogous to Pascal's wager? His idea comes from placing bets in the real world, so why not convert the analogy back into the real world and see how it plays out:
You are at a horse race and you are about to place a bet on one horse. Unlike Pascal's wager though, there is more than just two horses to bet on-- there are thousands in this race.* [see note below] Pascal is disingenuous because he only focuses on one particular god. There is only one peculiar thing with this race however: only one of the horses is visible, while every other one of the horses is invisible. The money you are placing on the bet is your entire life savings. Now, if I were the one collecting the money for placed bets, and I asked you which horse you would place your money on, which one do you think you would choose? The idea of a metaphysical bet is, like all other metaphysical arguments, non-sense.
And one other funny thing about Pascal's wager: Pascal was initially not a believer-- or at best, was something more akin to a deist. He did come to convert to Christianity-- but not by calculating the pros and cons, not by any cosmological argument, not by any ontological argument, not by any "proof" of the Christian god's existence, etc. etc. etc. No, rather, he had something that some might call a "mystical experience" which led to his immediate conversion.
This is almost always the case: Reason never brought them to Christianity in the first place. Which is why Christian apologetics strikes me as funny. But there is a downside to this as well: if reason didn't get them there, it probably won't get them out either (usually only an experience or set of certain experiences leads one out, not reason).
* NOTE: Non-believers ought not buy into the Christian trademarked "God" (capitalized)-- "god" is a title, a position-- not a name (US Americans may refer to Obama as "Mr. President" but this is a title, not his actual name). The Christian god is one god among thousands of others and deserves no special privilege of having "God" as its god. That particular god should be referred to by name, as Yahweh, or Jesus, or Elohim, etc. It is just a god, not "God."
Wolves, like many other social animals, will attach themselves to what they perceive as a strong leader. This is of course for survival purposes. In religion, survival is them projected beyond death into some other metaphysical realm. It is biological instinct run amok. Hence the sad fixation on "worshipping" the supreme alpha dog of the universe.
But also, what would be analogous to Pascal's wager? His idea comes from placing bets in the real world, so why not convert the analogy back into the real world and see how it plays out:
You are at a horse race and you are about to place a bet on one horse. Unlike Pascal's wager though, there is more than just two horses to bet on-- there are thousands in this race.* [see note below] Pascal is disingenuous because he only focuses on one particular god. There is only one peculiar thing with this race however: only one of the horses is visible, while every other one of the horses is invisible. The money you are placing on the bet is your entire life savings. Now, if I were the one collecting the money for placed bets, and I asked you which horse you would place your money on, which one do you think you would choose? The idea of a metaphysical bet is, like all other metaphysical arguments, non-sense.
And one other funny thing about Pascal's wager: Pascal was initially not a believer-- or at best, was something more akin to a deist. He did come to convert to Christianity-- but not by calculating the pros and cons, not by any cosmological argument, not by any ontological argument, not by any "proof" of the Christian god's existence, etc. etc. etc. No, rather, he had something that some might call a "mystical experience" which led to his immediate conversion.
This is almost always the case: Reason never brought them to Christianity in the first place. Which is why Christian apologetics strikes me as funny. But there is a downside to this as well: if reason didn't get them there, it probably won't get them out either (usually only an experience or set of certain experiences leads one out, not reason).
~ ~ ~
* NOTE: Non-believers ought not buy into the Christian trademarked "God" (capitalized)-- "god" is a title, a position-- not a name (US Americans may refer to Obama as "Mr. President" but this is a title, not his actual name). The Christian god is one god among thousands of others and deserves no special privilege of having "God" as its god. That particular god should be referred to by name, as Yahweh, or Jesus, or Elohim, etc. It is just a god, not "God."
(August 20, 2010 at 3:19 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: ...what is so great about heaven as a concept. It all seems so sterile.
Wolves, like many other social animals, will attach themselves to what they perceive as a strong leader. This is of course for survival purposes. In religion, survival is them projected beyond death into some other metaphysical realm. It is biological instinct run amok. Hence the sad fixation on "worshipping" the supreme alpha dog of the universe.
“Society is not a disease, it is a disaster. What a stupid miracle that one can live in it.” ~ E.M. Cioran
