Runboard.com
You're welcome.
Final Fantasy Dreams

RegisterLoginControl PanelMembers

FFDreams is expanding. HTTP calls replaced by HTTPS January 7, 2020.

runboard.com       Signup
Login:   

 
Velocity Eleven Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Midgar Zolom
 


Reg: 04-2005
Posts: 564
Greatness: 10 (+32/-22)
Reply Quote
Why Pascal's Wager Sucks


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=czEfLn_ifIU

take a look

---
Velocity Eleven
24/Sep/07, 3:15 pm Link 2 this post Email   PM AIM MSN
 
Grenseal Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Ultima Weapon
 


Reg: 11-2003
Loc: Port City Baltimore
Posts: 1111
Greatness: 66 (+81/-15)
Reply Quote
Re: Why Pascal's Wager Sucks


Hehe nice. Thats a pretty good explanation. A few days ago I actually had someone in my class go on about Pascal's wager and the first thing I asked him was what if you pick the wrong religion. I'm glad the video pointed out just how many choices there are if you want to believe in something.

---
Icewind Dale II talk

Ulbrec: ...Ennelia and Braston will meet you there, Targos's fate hinges on your success.

My response: I think Targos's fate hinges on how much Shawford can pay us from the Targos treasury.

25/Sep/07, 7:03 pm Link 2 this post Email   PM AIM MSN
 
Arbiter Azariah Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Omega Weapon
 


Reg: 12-2004
Loc: Between madness and insanity.
Posts: 954
Greatness: 92 (+108/-16)
Reply Quote
Re: Why Pascal's Wager Sucks


Ahhh, the Wager. I quite like it myself, but certainly don't find it to be a 'catch-all' reason for faith. I actually liked this video, as it highlighted reasons why the Wager isn't a universal argument. Problem is, nobody was claiming it was. Just a few quick points...

False belief:
The author is making the assumption that simply saying you believe is enough. The Wager isn't supporting false belief at all. Nowhere in its conditions does it say merely pretending to believe is adequate. Only sincere faith is acceptable. Yes, an omniscient God can certainly tell if you're faking it for the crowd. All the more reason to make it less than an act!

Doesn't determine right religion:
Yes, the Wager doesn't determine which religion is the right one. But that was never within the scope of the Wager to begin with. By design, it wasn't meant to help you choose a specific faith. It's simply a means of showing why faith is better than a lack thereof. Using this argument to spurn the wager is akin to saying a hammer is useless because it can't saw through wood.

Which version:
This was interesting. The author makes a few assumptions, however. First of all, he assumes that all various faith and denominations are equally likely, which most people don't consider to be the case.
Next, the 0.000154% chance seems quite shocking. However, I'll use the terms the author framed it out in. The argument assumes some form of Christianity is correct. In this scenario, the likelihood of atheism winning out stands at 0.00%. Even if all Christian denominations are as likely as the others, atheism still doesn't win you anything. Same case is you assume the wager's accuracy. It seems that you're still better off with something than nothing.

Atheistic Wager:
Ironically, the Atheist's Wager suffers a same problem that Pascal's Wager does, except in reverse. It assumes that if God exists, he'll send you to Heaven on the basis of good works alone. This is a position called legalism, something which many mainstream faith-based religions reject.

---
Prima: "If we waste any more time on 'weeaboo', we'll be bankrupt by the end of the month!"
Secunda: "Did someone just say 'weeaboo?' Because I heard someone say 'weeaboo'."
Persons 2-10: "Wee-a-boo! Wee-a-boo!"
27/Sep/07, 7:46 am Link 2 this post Email   PM
 
Grenseal Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Ultima Weapon
 


Reg: 11-2003
Loc: Port City Baltimore
Posts: 1111
Greatness: 66 (+81/-15)
Reply Quote
Re: Why Pascal's Wager Sucks


quote:

The author is making the assumption that simply saying you believe is enough. The Wager isn't supporting false belief at all. Nowhere in its conditions does it say merely pretending to believe is adequate. Only sincere faith is acceptable. Yes, an omniscient God can certainly tell if you're faking it for the crowd. All the more reason to make it less than an act!




    Well how do you know if a god or gods would reward faith??? What if they reward skepticism?
    This also brings up the case that a deity would reward believing in any god or gods. What if the said deity only rewards belief in itself??


quote:

Yes, the Wager doesn't determine which religion is the right one. But that was never within the scope of the Wager to begin with. By design, it wasn't meant to help you choose a specific faith. It's simply a means of showing why faith is better than a lack thereof. Using this argument to spurn the wager is akin to saying a hammer is useless because it can't saw through wood.




    Once again this assumes that a deity would reward belief. Pascal says that you have nothing to lose if you truly believe but I would say that I have much to lose. I would have wasted my entire life believing in something that didn't even exist in the first place. As far as I can tell we only live once so that means I just wasted my only shot at living believing in a fairy tale.
   This also brings me to another point. If I am to believe something I want adequate evidence that what I am to believe is the truth. I really don't think this is asking too much. If you expect me to believe something then a certain amount of empirical evidence should be present upon which I can base a decision. If I don't see this evidence and choose not to believe then why should I be doomed to suffering??? This is why I don't think having "faith" is such a good thing, at least as good as Pascal is claiming it to be.
    Upon death I would tell the deity "Hey, there just wasn't enough evidence."

quote:

Next, the 0.000154% chance seems quite shocking. However, I'll use the terms the author framed it out in. The argument assumes some form of Christianity is correct. In this scenario, the likelihood of atheism winning out stands at 0.00%. Even if all Christian denominations are as likely as the others, atheism still doesn't win you anything. Same case is you assume the wager's accuracy. It seems that you're still better off with something than nothing.



   Yeah I didn't like that number either but the point he was trying to make was that you could choose the wrong religion to believe in. That could be a fatal mistake depending upon the temperament of whatever god might exist.

   Yes it assumes one form of Christianity is correct but the point he was trying to make is that Christians themselves can't even determine what is right and wrong within their own religion. If you do decide to believe in one of them its likely to be a crap shoot for picking the right one. I think he was just trying to discredit Christianity actually.


quote:

Atheistic Wager:
Ironically, the Atheist's Wager suffers a same problem that Pascal's Wager does, except in reverse. It assumes that if God exists, he'll send you to Heaven on the basis of good works alone. This is a position called legalism, something which many mainstream faith-based religions reject.



   Yeah the Atheist's wager is a pile of junk as well. The key thing though is that it suffers from the same flaw as Pascal's which renders them both moot in my opinion.

---
Icewind Dale II talk

Ulbrec: ...Ennelia and Braston will meet you there, Targos's fate hinges on your success.

My response: I think Targos's fate hinges on how much Shawford can pay us from the Targos treasury.

27/Sep/07, 9:45 pm Link 2 this post Email   PM AIM MSN
 


Add a reply






You are not logged in (Login) Or Register an account

Local Business Directory, Search Engine Submission & SEO Tools