[clue-talk] How do CLUEbies vote?

[Angelo Bertolli]

David L. Willson wrote:
> 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>
>   

No, you've missed the point entirely (according to your response).  I 
have to choose an example that is so obviously untrue to make my point 
which is as I've stated:  belief is not really a choice.  The moon being 
cheese is an example of that... can you really CHOOSE to believe 
something that you really don't believe?  That's the question.

Pascal is one of my favorite people, but I think you (David) are just as 
smart as he was.  Maybe not relative to your respective time frames, but 
the nature of human progress is that we get smarter over time.

>> 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?
>   

Yes, Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive.  If you belong to 
one, you cannot go to heaven according to the other.  But the concept 
that those are the only two choices is in itself is fallacy anyway, 
because simply stating that "one of the most popular religions claims 
exclusivity" doesn't make it any more or less true, nor does it make 
your survival in an afterlife any more or less likely.


> 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?
>   

Hmmm, I don't know.  I certainly don't claim to be an atheist, and I 
really don't agree with atheists who try to "disprove" religion.  Hmmm, 
but I guess I wouldn't call nominal atheism a "system of faith."  I 
would say it's more the complete lack of faith in anything religious.


>> 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>
>   

I think you're reading into what I've been saying too much.  My point 
is, according to Pascal's logic it's much better to pay a finite payment 
for the POSSIBILITY of an infinite reward.  That's the crux of Pascal's 
Wager.  So my example is a $50 payment for another (admittedly less 
convincing, i.e. crazy) infinite reward.  So if anything, I'm comparing 
my $50 example to Christianity and admitting that it's way crazier 
sounding.  My point is that even though it's way crazier, even the 
smallest chance of it being true is worth paying $50 for an infinite 
reward.  Right?  An infinite reward totally throws risk management out 
the window.


>> 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.
>   

Pascal and C.S. Lewis are making different KINDS of arguments about why 
you should believe in God.  I think the point is you have to assume your 
audience "needs convincing."  If they're already coming from the 
position of not believing, then telling them "you better believe because 
you have nothing to lose" is inherently a weak argument.  Why?  Because 
it speaks nothing of any TRUTH of the position, only that you should do 
it for the reward.  I know you're a good person, and  you'll probably 
agree with me:  people shouldn't believe in God just so they'll go to 
heaven.

I'm trying to avoid talking about my personal situation and belief 
system, so I'll just say this:  I think participating in Christianity 
takes a commitment.  Even if you can eliminate the money aspect 
(although I don't know how a religion would survive without it), there's 
still a commitment to the lifestyle.  I PERSONALLY have no problem with 
that, but I do understand why many people wouldn't be willing to do that 
just based on the POSSIBILITY (which, if you're understanding the gist 
of what I'm saying, according to them is really slim, and they can't 
really force themselves to believe it) that you're right about going to 
heaven.  And anyway, I can't help but come back to one of my personal 
feelings:  isn't it a crappy reason to believe in God?  Just so you'll 
go to heaven?

>> 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.
>   
If you make the assumption that atheism and Christianity are the only 
two possible choices, then Pascal is right.  That assumption is flawed.  
Not because there are a finite number of other religions, but because 
there are an infinite number of OTHER possibilities (or possible 
religions, if you like).

> 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.
>   

Why is Christianity any more realistic than anything else (real or 
imaginary)?  And I don't mean from your personal feeling, because my 
personal feeling does prefer Christianity too.  I just mean from a 
logical argument that you might make to an atheist.

> 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.
>   

Well, I think that might be one area where you and I differ.  The world 
has become increasingly less numinous to me with age.


Angelo

-- 
http://angelo.bertolli.org/