[clue-talk] How do CLUEbies vote?

[David L. Willson]

On Sat, 2007-09-29 at 13:43 -0400, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
> Unfortunately, those who have always had the luxury of believing in God 
> with little or no doubt don't really understand that belief in God isn't 
> a choice.  It's an argument.  What I mean is you have to convince 
> someone in their heart that this is really TRUE.  (If I told you you'd 
> go to heaven if you simply believed the moon was made of cheese, could 
> you REALLY believe it?)  So Pascal's wager is really a moot point.  
> Nevertheless...

So, if I understand your point, Pascal's wager is moot, because the
likelihood of Jesus is about the same as the likelihood that the moon is
made of cheese, in other word, about nil.  Is that right?  That Pascal
was a pretty dumb guy...<that's sarcasm>

> I agree with Pascal about the existence of God being unprovable.  But, 
> the first problem you run into is "which religion do you choose."  The 
> response from Pascal seems to be that's the gamble you take, but you're 
> better off taking that gamble rather than simply death.  He bases this 
> on the logic that not believing means death and believing means life.  
> That's the second problem.  This is really only very clear in certain 
> religions.  Plus, he does not account for the fact that a "real" 
> religion may not even exist yet (if there is a God).

Pascal takes the perspective that many Christians, and many comparative
religion scholars take.  Not that Jesus is the only choice, but that
Jesus is the only exclusive choice.  Are you aware of another one?
Then, when we have defined the field of exclusive truths, I want to
measure them against one another using some mutually-agreeable
criterion.  If, by comparison, one looks like Evander Holyfield and the
other like Steve Urkel, I'm going to stick with my current bet.  But I'm
always up for looking over new options.  As I said, occasional acid-dips
are good for one's faith system.  Saying that persistent atheism isn't a
system of faith is pretty darn silly, wouldn't you agree?

> Popularity of a religion isn't a logical indicator of truth.  I think 
> it's an indicator of usefulness, and an indicator of human behavior and 
> need.  Maybe if all religions always mysteriously seemed to indicate 
> that you need to believe in God or die then it would be more 
> convincing.  Pascal's wager's biggest problem is the logic of using 
> infinite reward.  If I promise everyone on this list they will go to 
> heaven if they simply donate $50 to me and the new religion I'm 
> starting, would you do it?  Would you expect an atheist to do it?  Even 
> though you may think I'm just crazy, $50 one time is such a minor cost 
> on the tiniest fraction of a chance that I might be right.

So...  now Jesus was crazy?  Or Christians are crazy?  I'm not sure I'm
keeping up.  No, you're back to the unlikelihood thing.  That Pascal was
some nitwit, wasn't he?  <that's sarcasm, again>

> But the stakes are higher with the major religions:  they expect you to 
> give money over a lifetime, follow their rituals and dedicate time to 
> them, etc.  All of that commitment, for your entire life, just on the 
> chance that there is a God?  See why it still takes some real convincing 
> for an atheist, and not just the logic of infinite reward?  (So, I think 
> C.S. Lewis' approach to convincing people to believe in God is better 
> because he tries to make arguments to actually convince you it's true.)

NOW, we get to the meat of your argument!  It's too expensive to bet
with Pascal.  But then you mentioned C.S.Lewis, as if he and Pascal were
coming from exclusive areas.  Why wouldn't the benefit's of C.S.Lewis'
Jesus also come with believing in Pascal's Jesus?  More to the point,
why does Jesus cost Angelo money and demand "all of that commitment"
from him, but give nothing in return?  He doesn't sound like any Jesus I
know.

> Instead, I think a better argument is the things you gain from religion 
> in THIS life.  In fact, this is becoming more and more of a better 
> argument over time as people think less and less the same as their 
> predecessors.  Back when the world was mysterious and magical, and 
> people believed in ghosts and demons visiting them at night when they 
> had sleep apnea, or that they were possessed when they had mental 
> conditions, it was a lot more useful to talk about eternal reward and 
> punishment.  These days, we have solved a lot of the mysteries that make 
> the world seem so numinous to us.

Well, let's follow that out, since we're analyzing Pascal's Wager, let's
check the cost/benefit model of following Jesus, and of following
atheism.

And/or, we can first check to see if there are any realistic competitors
to Jesus' title as one-half of the options in Pascal's Wager.

And last, the world becomes more numinous to me, not less, as I learn
more about how things work, and how unlikely they are to have just
happened to work.