6 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascals_Wager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascals_Wager

by dustingetz 14y ago

gnaritas 14y ago
A well known and obvious false dilemma, how is that relevant?
- pjscott 14y ago
  The problems with Pascal's wager are good to keep in mind when trying to reason about hypothetical deities. Mostly, the lesson here is that when you're considering what types of gods may exist, there are a lot of possibilities. Any time you try to break the set of all possible gods down into simple categories, be careful and double-check your assumptions, because you could easily have forgotten something major. For example, Pascal's Wager doesn't really consider the set of hypothetical gods who are violently offended by blind faith, but these gods are no less possible than the ones it does consider.
  - gnaritas 14y ago
    One doesn't generally quote something they disagree with as support for something because something they agree with can be found in the criticisms of that which they quoted. As you aren't the OP, you can't answer the intended relevance. I do not think his reasons would match your rationalization of it. I agree with you, but doubt the OP does.
    - pjscott 14y ago
      Of course; I didn't mean to imply that I spoke for the OP.
confluence 14y ago
Pascal's wager assumes one can only hold a belief in 1 god. However as it is trying not to make assumptions about the existence of gods then it really should take into account the possibility of infinite gods. Wager value now divided by infinity or negative as believing in infinite gods is tough on your wallet.
- jonnathanson 14y ago
  Indeed, one of the critical flaws with Pascal's Wager, from a decision-science standpoint, is that it's Judeo-Christian-centric. AFAIK, only the gods of monotheistic religions seem to demand singular worship. Gods of other religions and belief systems don't seem to give a crap how many of them you worship, or whether you blend them into admixtures of faith. Given that there is no evidence that the Christian God is more likely to exist than, say, Zeus, we must provide equal statistical weight to Zeus as to J.C. And so on for all the other possibilities, ad infinitum. But it doesn't stop there. Some religions' tenets conflict directly with the tenets of others. So it can be said that there are multiple sets of compatible religions that can be held at a given time. Most of these religions are polytheistic. By contrast, adopting a monotheistic religion limits you to just one chip on the cosmic roulette table. Ergo, from a statistical standpoint, choosing a monotheistic religion (such as Christianity) for the Wager is taking the worst possible odds.
  - stock_toaster 14y ago
    It would be interesting to see a matrix of popular religions and their compatibilities with/against belief in other religions.
    - confluence 14y ago
      Reminds me of the Game of Thrones character matrices I've seen around. People who are religious, funnily enough, exhibit the exact same tendencies as Game of Thrones and Dr. Who fans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNtnN_DiP3o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNtnN_DiP3o).
      - stock_toaster 14y ago
        Ha! Hadn't seen that yet. I am shocked they didn't end it with "anyone got wood for my sheep? wood for my sheep..anyone?". ;)
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascals_Wager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascals_Wager

gnaritas 14y ago

A well known and obvious false dilemma, how is that relevant?

pjscott 14y ago
The problems with Pascal's wager are good to keep in mind when trying to reason about hypothetical deities. Mostly, the lesson here is that when you're considering what types of gods may exist, there are a lot of possibilities. Any time you try to break the set of all possible gods down into simple categories, be careful and double-check your assumptions, because you could easily have forgotten something major. For example, Pascal's Wager doesn't really consider the set of hypothetical gods who are violently offended by blind faith, but these gods are no less possible than the ones it does consider.
- gnaritas 14y ago
  One doesn't generally quote something they disagree with as support for something because something they agree with can be found in the criticisms of that which they quoted. As you aren't the OP, you can't answer the intended relevance. I do not think his reasons would match your rationalization of it. I agree with you, but doubt the OP does.
  - pjscott 14y ago
    Of course; I didn't mean to imply that I spoke for the OP.

confluence 14y ago

Pascal's wager assumes one can only hold a belief in 1 god. However as it is trying not to make assumptions about the existence of gods then it really should take into account the possibility of infinite gods. Wager value now divided by infinity or negative as believing in infinite gods is tough on your wallet.

jonnathanson 14y ago
Indeed, one of the critical flaws with Pascal's Wager, from a decision-science standpoint, is that it's Judeo-Christian-centric. AFAIK, only the gods of monotheistic religions seem to demand singular worship. Gods of other religions and belief systems don't seem to give a crap how many of them you worship, or whether you blend them into admixtures of faith. Given that there is no evidence that the Christian God is more likely to exist than, say, Zeus, we must provide equal statistical weight to Zeus as to J.C. And so on for all the other possibilities, ad infinitum. But it doesn't stop there. Some religions' tenets conflict directly with the tenets of others. So it can be said that there are multiple sets of compatible religions that can be held at a given time. Most of these religions are polytheistic. By contrast, adopting a monotheistic religion limits you to just one chip on the cosmic roulette table. Ergo, from a statistical standpoint, choosing a monotheistic religion (such as Christianity) for the Wager is taking the worst possible odds.
- stock_toaster 14y ago
  It would be interesting to see a matrix of popular religions and their compatibilities with/against belief in other religions.
  - confluence 14y ago
    Reminds me of the Game of Thrones character matrices I've seen around. People who are religious, funnily enough, exhibit the exact same tendencies as Game of Thrones and Dr. Who fans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNtnN_DiP3o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNtnN_DiP3o).
    - stock_toaster 14y ago
      Ha! Hadn't seen that yet. I am shocked they didn't end it with "anyone got wood for my sheep? wood for my sheep..anyone?". ;)
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]