|
So lately I've been thinking about the limits of human imagination and creativity. This line of thought eventually lead me to thinking about creation stories, after-life claims, and other various metaphysical or even "religious" topics (or more accurately, questions religion still claims to have an answer to). There is a blank canvas of an entire universe, and people paint it only with what they see around them. What struck me as incredibly disappointing is how remarkably unimaginative most of these things are. Take the Judeo-Christian mythology for example: God created the Earth in 7 days (days? Wtf how can there even be days without an Earth). He also happens to look like... uhh.. US! Really? The supreme creator of the universe just happens to look like a human (or more accurately, we look like he does). Of course, I approach this from the realm of fiction, while some people still approach this as a description of "truth." Perhaps that explains the lack of creativity.
But this is about Pascal's Wager and why it is such terrible odds. Now, if you aren't familiar with the wager, just read up on the wiki link; it does a pretty good job of summarizing it. Pascal's Wager has been largely discredited by now, so I'm not exactly treading new ground in pointing out the problems it has. However, the biggest issue I had with it is how incredibly uncreative it really is. The problem starts with the very first supposition of the wager:
"God is, or He is not"
Reducing such a complex issue as whether or not there are supernatural/supreme beings to either there is one single one, or there is none, is depressingly simplistic for such a question. Why can there either be one god, or no gods? Why can't there be 10? Or 1000? Or 5 1/2 that all hate each other. You can see where I'm going with this; the answer to whether or not there is a supreme being "god" cannot be reduced to a binary: that is just being unimaginative. The reality is there are actually infinite possible answers to this question (as we have no solid evidence for any one answer being true, all answers are possible).
The second problem with the wager is the 4th part (in the wiki):
You must wager. (It's not optional.)]
Why must I wager? Says who? What rule of the universe says I must wager whether or not there is a god/gods? None. In fact, I argue that not wagering is the best option. By choosing either of the two options (there is one god, or there are no gods) you are excluding yourself from all the other possible options, which as discussed above, is actually infinite.
To make Pascal's Wager is, in essence to bet 1/∞. Which seems to be the worst odds possible in the universe (which is pretty bad if you are wagering with your eternal existence, as some would have you believe).
 
|
I think the biggest problem is how people put limits on what "God" is. If "God" is really all powerful why would there be 10 or 1000. The thing about numbers is that you can say that each individual "god" in that 1000 population is equally as powerful as each other (which in that case, why would you even call them gods?) or perhaps that they are so in tune and in sync with each other that it doesnt matter if they number more than 1.
About the unimaginative, once more, you reduce for unthinkable into a box. According to the quote you mentioned, it states that God doesnt look like us, we look like him, A difference in perspective that makes all the world. You look like your father and mother. Their resemblance to form does not hinge on your existence.
And finally, about the wager. Perhaps by not playing you've already made a choice? Religion is a very personal thing and I am merely sharing my views on it.
I suppose the crux to your question is that there should be "infinite possible answers" to what may be. But my definition of "God" would be one who encompasses all of those possibilities and more. Only then can that being be termed "God".
|
Nobody except for crooks take Genesis 'literally' - I write 'literally' because it is a funny thing to note that for the medieval theologians, a 'literal' reading of the Bible was something completely different from what fundamentalists understand it to mean nowadays.
Anyway, your first argument against Pascal is a red herring: Pascal is talking about the christian god - either that god exists or he does not (law of the excluded middle). You say that there could be other gods, but that's completely off-topic.
Your second argument came really close to being interesting, since you could have pointed out that Pascal had no conception of what agnosticism was, which is exactly the notion of withholding judgement about the existence of god. Pascal could have argued in response to that, saying agnosticism is based on a false understanding of faith and that the wager ultimately is a question of whether or not to believe in god's existence (in oder to attain salvation etc). Instead, you misunderstood him, coming really close to making a straw man fallacy: Pascal says either god exists or he doesn't; denying the existence of the christian god doesn't mean denying the existence of other gods. It just means that, according to christianity, if you deny the existence of god then you're going to burn in hell forever. Here you could have pointed out that Pascal assumes the wager to be done in the context of the assumed truth of the christian religion, but yeah.
The wiki has some fairly good stuff to say on the wager though. 1/5.
|
On February 19 2013 08:08 Sauwelios wrote:
Nobody except for crooks take Genesis 'literally' - I write 'literally' because it is a funny thing to note that for the medieval theologians, a 'literal' reading of the Bible was something completely different from what fundamentalists understand it to mean nowadays.
Anyway, your first argument against Pascal is a red herring: Pascal is talking about the christian god - either that god exists or he does not (law of the excluded middle). You say that there could be other gods, but that's completely off-topic.
Your second argument came really close to being interesting, since you could have pointed out that Pascal had no conception of what agnosticism was, which is exactly the notion of withholding judgement about the existence of god. Pascal could have argued in response to that, saying agnosticism is based on a false understanding of faith and that the wager ultimately is a question of whether or not to believe in god's existence (in oder to attain salvation etc). Instead, you misunderstood him, coming really close to making a straw man fallacy: Pascal says either god exists or he doesn't; denying the existence of the christian god doesn't mean denying the existence of other gods. It just means that, according to christianity, if you deny the existence of god then you're going to burn in hell forever. Here you could have pointed out that Pascal assumes the wager to be done in the context of the assumed truth of the christian religion, but yeah.
The wiki has some fairly good stuff to say on the wager though. 1/5.
What... Is... what?
Pascal had no conception of what agnosticism is? What? Where in the world are you getting this idea? Why in the world do you believe this to be true? What reality are you currently inhabiting? The concept of agnosticism emerged (in the west) in roughly the 4th century BC.
Second, in order to believe in the christian god, you must, by definition, refute the existence of all other gods. I'm not even going to bother responding to anything else here, because I'm pretty sure (positive) you don't actually have any clue what you are talking about, and I'd rather spend time on other posters.
|
On February 19 2013 07:49 Crissaegrim wrote:
I think the biggest problem is how people put limits on what "God" is. If "God" is really all powerful why would there be 10 or 1000. The thing about numbers is that you can say that each individual "god" in that 1000 population is equally as powerful as each other (which in that case, why would you even call them gods?) or perhaps that they are so in tune and in sync with each other that it doesnt matter if they number more than 1.
About the unimaginative, once more, you reduce for unthinkable into a box. According to the quote you mentioned, it states that God doesnt look like us, we look like him, A difference in perspective that makes all the world. You look like your father and mother. Their resemblance to form does not hinge on your existence.
And finally, about the wager. Perhaps by not playing you've already made a choice? Religion is a very personal thing and I am merely sharing my views on it.
I suppose the crux to your question is that there should be "infinite possible answers" to what may be. But my definition of "God" would be one who encompasses all of those possibilities and more. Only then can that being be termed "God".
This is a bit more interesting, but you're still thinking too much inside the box. Why does there have to be an "all powerful" god? You're still stuck in the same paradigm Pascal was. Why do the beings responsible for creating the universe (what I'm calling gods) have to be singular and all powerful? There is no evidence to suggest this must be the case.They may be separate entities that hate each other, or have no sort of consciousness that relates to anything we would define as consciousness at all.
What we are really going to get down to is definitions. This removes some of the most basic (Judeo-Christian) definitions of "god" from the table as a rational choice, and so we are left trying to define what is left in that space. How do you define a god/gods? Why do you chose to define it that way, and what justification/evidence (if any) do you have for that definition of god/gods?
|
Yes, he most likely had no conception of agnosticism as we use it today.
And yeah sure, just ad hominem your way out of it. It's ok, almost everyone else around here does as well.
|
Good thread. I liked the part where people thought they're smarter than everyone else. :3
|
On February 19 2013 08:40 Sauwelios wrote:
Yes, he most likely had no conception of agnosticism as we use it today.
And yeah sure, just ad hominem your way out of it. It's ok, almost everyone else around here does as well.
Are you ignoring the wiki link I put in?
If you are saying he was unfamiliar with the specific term, then yes, I'd agree. However, to suggest that he is unfamiliar with the concept (again, the link), is wrong (unless you can somehow prove what he specifically knew and did not know). I'd assume a 17th century philosopher would be somewhat familiar with the ideas of Socrates et al. Call it a hunch.
And I'd like to know how you can reconcile the Christian concept of monotheism with the possibility of there being the Christian god, as well as other gods. I'd honestly be interested in reading that.
|
"Here is a link on the internet that supports my claim which is sufficient evidence to support my opinion on this matter, but if you wish to similarly validate your argument you must go back in time and bring Pascal back to the future with you and allow him to substantiate your claims in person because I don't like the fact that you're trying to question something I said on the internet."
|
I guess I should have highlighted "AS WE USE IT TODAY" because you know, we did quite a lot of work on the concept of agnosticism over the last couple of centuries.
As for the second point: You wrote in the OP thus:
Reducing such a complex issue as whether or not there are supernatural/supreme beings to either there is one single one, or there is none, is depressingly simplistic for such a question. Why can there either be one god, or no gods? This is a false dichotomy, and this is what I have been pointing out. His point is that either God exists (and thus no other gods) or God does not exist (and thus other gods can exist). But you say that either God exists or no gods exist. That's just a misunderstanding. If God exists, no other gods can exist, but if he does not exist, then that doesn't mean other gods can't exist.
Then you said that whether 'God' exists cannot be expressed in a binary. Of course it can: see the law of the excluded middle. Either x is true or not-x is true. There is no third option. This is not unimaginative or uncreative, it's just plain logic.
|
On February 19 2013 08:51 Plaaank wrote:
"Here is a link on the internet that supports my claim which is sufficient evidence to support my opinion on this matter, but if you wish to similarly validate your argument you must go back in time and bring Pascal back to the future with you and allow him to substantiate your claims in person because I don't like the fact that you're trying to question something I said on the internet."
Well... I was assuming it didn't need to be spelled out... but I may as well since people want be both dumb and snarky.
Pascal was a well educated 17th century French philosopher. A fairly standard part of the education for the... educated... in the 17th century would be a reading (usually in the ancient Greek), of ancient Greek philosophers including skeptics such as Socrates and friends. A part of this skeptic philosophy is that you could not possibly know whether there is a god/gods or not (what we term today as agnosticism). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Pascal would be familiar with the concept of "you can't know" as to whether there was a god/gods (he states as much, that is why it is a wager). However, the mistake is simply reducing that "I don't know" into an either he is, or isn't possibility, which is not the case (as I discussed above).
|
On February 19 2013 09:10 Sauwelios wrote: But you say that either God exists or no gods exist.
No, I don't. I say almost the opposite. That there is an infinite possibility regarding the existence of god/gods (again, I'm defining gods as beings responsible for the creation of the universe). Lumping an infinite possibly into the single definition of "God" is not in anyway logical. Especially when you get to the real meat of the wager, which is to say either you believe and worship in a certain way(that there is one single god), or you don't.
Perhaps if you could give your working definition of "God" we could reach a more mutual understanding.
Edit: I'm not sure whether you're understanding the wager. It is between believing in God, or believing in no gods (atheism). Not believing in God, or believing in infinite possibilities. At least, this is how I understand the wager, as it stands.
|
I found the OP interesting but not exactly about Pascal at all. You intentionally try to take some of Pascals biggest points and brush them off. Actually that is all you've done. It's not 1 vs infinity. The fact that you think that means you didn't understand what Pascal was talking about at all. I get your argument but that goes so far past Pascal that the only mention to him should be "this is why Pascals Wager could be wrong for another religion"
I dunno... interesting points but they don't really match to talking about this particular subject.
|
I recommend Slavoj Zizek, Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism, pp. 112-120, for an interesting discussion of Pascal's Wager!
I'm sure your local library has the text ( )
On February 19 2013 09:19 HardlyNever wrote:
Perhaps if you could give your working definition of "God" we could reach a more mutual understanding.
and there, of course, is the rub
|
On February 19 2013 09:19 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 09:10 Sauwelios wrote: But you say that either God exists or no gods exist.
No, I don't.
So praise tell who wrote this:
"Why can there either be one god, or no gods?"
"[...] whether or not there are supernatural/supreme beings to either there is one single one, or there is none [...]"
|
On February 19 2013 09:25 Sauwelios wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 09:19 HardlyNever wrote:On February 19 2013 09:10 Sauwelios wrote: But you say that either God exists or no gods exist.
No, I don't. So praise tell who wrote this: "Why can there either be one god, or no gods?" "[...] whether or not there are supernatural/supreme beings to either there is one single one, or there is none [...]"
Read my edit for clarification. I think we are talking about who is saying what differently.
|
Upon further reading, I think this is where we are getting hung up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#Argument_from_inconsistent_revelations
There (still) seems to be a debate as to whether Pascal would consider worshiping other gods as "choosing no god" or "actually just worshiping the one God in a different way," as I read it.
Edit:
This short but densely packed passage, which alludes to numerous themes discussed elsewhere in the Pensées, has given rise to many pages of scholarly analysis.
Makes me think we aren't going to get there in a TL blog post, either.
|
Edit: I'm not sure whether you're understanding the wager. It is between believing in God, or believing in no gods (atheism). Not believing in God, or believing in infinite possibilities. At least, this is how I understand the wager, as it stands.
The wiki says that the first part of the wager entails:
"God is, or He is not"
Where is it written that one ought to believe in no gods at all? That statement poses a simple question of whether x is or whether x is not. Not whether x is and the rest of the entire category that x was part of is not.
Here's an analogy: This table is made out of wood. Either this table exists or it does not. But if we deny it's existence then that doesn't mean we MUST deny the existence of everything that is made out of wood. The christian God is part of the category of all gods in general; either the christian God exists or he does not. But that doesn't mean all possible gods in general do not exist if we deny the christian God's existence.
|
On February 19 2013 09:25 Sauwelios wrote:Show nested quote +Edit: I'm not sure whether you're understanding the wager. It is between believing in God, or believing in no gods (atheism). Not believing in God, or believing in infinite possibilities. At least, this is how I understand the wager, as it stands. The wiki says that the first part of the wager entails: "God is, or He is not" Where is it written that one ought to believe in no gods at all? That statement poses a simple question of whether x is or whether x is not. Not whether x is and the rest of the entire category that x was part of is not. Here's an analogy: This table is made out of wood. Either this table exists or it does not. But if we deny it's existence then that doesn't mean we MUST deny the existence of everything that is made out of wood. The christian God is part of the category of all gods in general; either the christian God exists or he does not. But that doesn't mean all possible gods in general do not exist if we deny the christian God's existence.
Again, it is definitions. Reading "God is, or He is not" means one singular god, not infinite possibilities that could be lumped together into some definition of "God (to me)." Having a such broad definition, to me, is worthless, as such a definition really gives no direction or focus for belief(and seems to have no real meaning). What is it that you are actually believing in if you believe in infinite gods? What does that look like? What is the meaning of that?
That is sort of the definition I'm after here.
|
On February 19 2013 09:41 HardlyNever wrote:
What is it that you are actually believing in if you believe in infinite gods? What does that look like? What is the meaning of that?
Oooh! I like that. Today I'm going to believe in that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
