[clue-talk] How do CLUEbies vote?

[David L. Willson]

On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 03:57 -0400, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
> 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.

Sort of.  You can't choose to believe something you don't believe, but
you can choose to believe something you don't 'know'.  God, or the lack
thereof, cannot be known.  If the existence of God were known, then
people that would otherwise disbelieve in him would be forced into
unwilling obedience by knowledge of his existence.  Doubt is absolutely
necessary for free will.  So, each of decides whether there is a
reasonable likelihood of God.  If he decides no, he believes that there
is no God, and moves along confidently as an atheist, but if there is
reasonable chance of God, he places a 'bet' according to Pascal's Wager.
Whether that bet is motivated by love or fear or dislike or some
combination, is up to the individual.

> 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.

Thank you!

> >> 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.

I'm not sure that that's correct.  I understood Islam to grant the
possibility of Heaven to Jews and Christians.

So...  You're saying that the game is rigged, that the "one true" way of
relating to God might be some really well-hidden religion that only six
people ascribe to?  Or have I missed the point again?

> > 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.

In order for atheism to 'succeed', there must be no God, or that God
must tolerate atheism.  Since God cannot be disproven, an atheist needs
an amount of "faith" that God doesn't exist.

> >> 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.

The reward doesn't have to be infinite.  Let's say that the reward is
just 100 years more of life.  Now, the value of placing faith becomes
100 years of life times the likelihood that faith system works as
expected.  Now the cost-benefit model comes in...
> 
> > 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 completely agree.  And I do think that people would be better off
believing.

> 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?

Yep.  There's a tremendous amount of good to be done, right here on the
rock.  Not to mention the atrocities that need to be fought against.
Children to be raised.  Loves to be loved.  Prayers to be said.  Heaven,
Hell, and lots of other things seem not presently relevant.

I never thought that Pascal's wager was about Heaven or Hell.  I chose,
once upon a time, to believe in God, and to seek him out, to really
search, not just one particular day, but my whole life long, and beyond,
if possible.  It has been highly rewarding.  I don't have to wait until
I'm dead to find out.  And the cost?  I've had to give up a few things
that were hurting me.  I'm glad for the help in giving them up.  This is
the best free thing going.

> >> 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).

see below

> > 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.

I'll turn you to any number of books by comparative religionists and
former atheists.  Lee Strobel and C.S. Lewis may be good to start.  I'll
need to find a comparative religionist to add to my list.

The particular way this planet works to keep us alive is unlikely.  Life
is unlikely, regardless of the planet.  Jesus satisfying the prophecies
that he satisfied is unlikely.  The behavior in his followers
immediately following his departure, particularly their willingness to
die for his memory, is extremely unlikely.  When you start to multiply
unlikelihoods, something supernatural and wonderful, starts to look
pretty likely.

The Bible holds up well to verification against outside sources.  As
historical documents go, it is second-to-none in terms of verified
accuracy, and we use much less well-verified documents to build ancient
history.

Jesus is the only god to die for a purpose.  Jesus is the only god to
come back from the dead.

On the other hand, when you give Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Zeus, Gea, or
the Raven a serious going over, all you find is mythology and lunatic
ravings mixed with some nice philosophy.  No satisfied prophecies, no
independent corroboration of fact, sometimes you even find a lack of
~internal~ consistency!

That's a few of my objective reasons, but my best reason is the
relationship I have with him.  I chose to believe, and I found the best
friend, the best teacher, and the greatest hero a man could want.  I'd
never say ~that~ to an atheist, though, they wouldn't get it.

> > 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.

Don't let 'em turn you cynical, Angelo.  Critical thinking doesn't have
to be cynical thinking.

Whatever natural thing you know the most about, learn a little more
about it, and then try to imagine what it would take for you to make one
just like it, and then try to imagine it "just happening" without your
help or guidance, just happening, all by itself.  That's why I walk
around the world with my mouth open wide like a tourist sometimes.  What
God has wrought is AWESOME and the more I know, the awesomer it all
gets.