tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post6369970649992112628..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: The Global Warming WagerVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42600365207008269052011-09-07T17:46:11.027-07:002011-09-07T17:46:11.027-07:00Tony,
That video, while sufficient for rejecting ...Tony,<br /><br />That video, while sufficient for rejecting the Wager, actually makes several - albeit subtle - errors.<br /><br />All,<br /><br />I'm almost done with my post to end all posts about Pascal's Wager. I promise it will be epic.Jesse Parrishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811498368484905340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77703131308511102642011-09-07T17:38:59.210-07:002011-09-07T17:38:59.210-07:00I'm not a fan of Youtube videos in place of wr...I'm not a fan of Youtube videos in place of written arguments, but this is one of those rare instances where I thought a nice job was done in short period of time:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU&feature=player_embedded<br /><br />For me there's a sliding scale of interesting questions / arguments that make theism more or less worth considering. I'd place the cosmological argument at the head of that class, and Pascal's at the very, very back.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14178419155873935555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58449227835087859432011-09-07T13:01:16.006-07:002011-09-07T13:01:16.006-07:00(Continuation)
Ultimately, there CANNOT be a ratio...(Continuation)<br />Ultimately, there CANNOT be a rational reason to believe in God. (If he suddenly manifests himself in public, and submits to every conceivable test, it's not "belief" anymore.) Many very intelligent people believe in God... I count my wife among them... but no one comes to believe in God by pure reason. They create reasons to justify their emotional response, and that emotional response is part of how evolution has hard-wired most of our brains. (I do not anticipate humanity ever "growing out" of religion; it seems to be part of what defines humanity. I figure most atheists are, basically, the far end of the bell curve, with the truly insane religious fanatics at the other end, and most of humanity muddling along in the middle. That there is a personal, internal, experience "of the divine" is readily established by neurological studies, and it's very likely that some of us (like me) lack the requisite neurotransmitters or wiring. This experience is so intense, it seems, that it is impossible for even very intelligent people to accept that it is a purely INTERNAL phenomenon with no external cause, and devote their intelligence to complex philosophies to justify their faith. However, ultimately, all such philosophies are useless, because not one can do so much as prove if the Catholics or the Protestants are right... never mind Christians vs. Muslims, Monotheists vs. Polytheists, etc. Such "proofs" of the existence of "some kind of something which is sort of divineish" give us no moral guidance, no insights about the universe, no answers to any puzzles, nothing. Even if one accepts a "prime mover", who is to say it hasn't moved on? Who is to say that the creator(s) of this universe are not themselves the creations of an even greater entity? Etc, etc, etc. Rational "proofs" of God are just intelligent people's way of dealing with the cognitive dissonance caused by faith. The smart thing to do is just wall it off in your mind and accept your irrationality, just as I do when I decide that a particular D20 has "run out of good numbers". I know perfectly well this is irrational, and I *still* toss it back in the bag and get out another one. It is irrational to deny human irrationality.)Lizardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11612692415592670468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46911849017573466972011-09-07T12:56:41.477-07:002011-09-07T12:56:41.477-07:00If this is the only life I get (which is where all...If this is the only life I get (which is where all the evidence points), then, yes, there's infinite value, to me, in every hour of it, even those I spend playing World of Warcraft. Again, there is the constant repetition of assumptions of the non-atheist side as if they were proven facts -- that there is "infinite" pleasure in heaven or torment in hell. Why assume this? Perhaps you spend a year in heaven and then God recycles your soul and it's back to the grind. Perhaps Hell is far more pleasurable than Earth.. it's just "Hell" because it's not quite as good as heaven, sort of like being a millionaire but having to live next door to billionaires. Etc.<br /><br />There's a problem here which some have called the "1%" problem, as in, many business plans say something like "If only 1% of iPod users buy our app, that's still a million dollars we'll make!" Sounds good. But the fact is, much of the time, you're not getting 1%. Or 0.01%. Or 0.00000000000001%. The logic that no matter how low you set the probability of success, it's still X% of infinity fails because that low probability has to balance against proven reality...and because no one has yet proposed any kind of filter which can provably distinguish between "an arbitrarily low chance of a given afterlife being valid" and "absolutely NO chance of a given afterlife being valid". Can you offer any argument that going to feast in Valhalla is LESS likely than going to the Pearly Gates? Any argument that I am more likely to burn in Hell than to wander by the River Lethe? If you can't, there is absolutely no basis to choose any religion over none, and many reasons to choose none -- opportunity costs, as noted above.<br /><br />To use another example, I could argue that if there's a 1/20 million chance of winning 10 million dollars for the cost of a 1 dollar ticket, it's a bad gamble (You could say, statistically, I'll win 0.50 cents), but if it becomes a 1/20 million chance of winning 100 million dollars, it's a good gamble, since statistically, I "win" 5.00 with my 1.00 ticket. However... it's still a bad gamble, because there's many ways to get a much more certain return on that 1.00 investment (even going to a casino will give you a 94% return on the nickel slots!). And in the case of faith, you have no idea WHAT the odds are. One in a billion, one in a trillion, one in a googol... you can cling to that "infinity" caveat all you like, but there's no proof of THAT, either. To go back to the lottery example... you're asking us to buy a ticket where we a)don't know the odds of winning, and b)don't even know for sure if the prize exists. I am better off responding to that nice man from Nigeria who wants my help getting money out of the country.<br /> (Continued due to word count limit)Lizardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11612692415592670468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21097963752788592502011-09-07T12:48:44.269-07:002011-09-07T12:48:44.269-07:00Jesse,
As I've also noted, the Wager (2x2 tab...Jesse,<br /><br /><i>As I've also noted, the Wager (2x2 table) is still invalid whatever your intuitions. To try to capture those intuitions, one must use finite utilities (and spell out boundaries for which the Wager holds, after doing lots of other work.)</i><br /><br />This is the part I'm trying to understand from you. Okay, you say the Wager is invalid 'whatever your intuitions'. But from what I've read you write, and from your SEP reference, that invalidity seems to be grounded on the results you get when taking into account mixed strategies with an infinite good. Am I right about this much?Crudehttp://crudeideas.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39862618568806110052011-09-07T12:40:58.442-07:002011-09-07T12:40:58.442-07:00Now, you've said that's clearly counterint...<i>Now, you've said that's clearly counterintuitive.</i><br /><br />The paradoxes of infinite utilities are counter-intuitive. But as I've said, I accept the intuition in this case, because - for reasons independent of my knowledge of decision theory - I do not feel that conversion/whatever strategy should have any effect on outcomes the afterlife.<br /><br />As I've also noted, the Wager (2x2 table) is still invalid whatever your intuitions. To try to capture those intuitions, one must use finite utilities (and spell out boundaries for which the Wager holds, after doing lots of other work.)<br /><br />I'm still working on a post, but since much of it is original research - to my knowledge - it's taking some time.<br /><br />To test your intuitions on where the consequences of infinite utilities `work', try looking at an analogous case. (See e.g. my latest comment over at Christian Cadre's post.)Jesse Parrishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811498368484905340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15415091976490007862011-09-07T12:29:38.404-07:002011-09-07T12:29:38.404-07:00Jesse,
Actually, (2) and (3) are not sound object...Jesse,<br /><br /><i>Actually, (2) and (3) are not sound objections (unless you are ascribing infinite utility to your lost opportunities), and the Wager would not be valid even if you restricted yourself to the original table.</i><br /><br />We've been over this, but I'd like to ask again. You say 'the wager would not be valid' - but that seems to depend on accepting the results of a decision theory that indicates, given the deathbed example, that even if you have one choice left between the .99 and the .0001 payoff, the math indicates that both choices are equivalently rational to make.<br /><br />Now, you've said that's clearly counterintuitive. But if that's what the claim that the wager is invalid rests on, then it seems to me that you have good reason to reject the relevant DT calculation in the deathbed case, and arguably in previous cases - which seems to kick out the claim that the wager is invalid. <br /><br />Now, if I understand you right then the reply here is 'But that would be ad hoc'. But putting that aside - big thing to put aside, I know - it really seems like the claim of the wager being invalid rests on accepting the dictates of a calculation which doesn't seem to work in this case anyway.Crudehttp://crudeideas.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18056997815350057142011-09-07T12:16:24.268-07:002011-09-07T12:16:24.268-07:00Lizard,
Actually, (2) and (3) are not sound objec...Lizard,<br /><br />Actually, (2) and (3) are not sound objections (unless you are ascribing infinite utility to your lost opportunities), and the Wager would not be valid even if you restricted yourself to the original table.<br /><br />For details, see the thread.Jesse Parrishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811498368484905340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20320720231645735322011-09-07T11:02:37.051-07:002011-09-07T11:02:37.051-07:00I suppose I shouldn't be astounded at how ofte...I suppose I shouldn't be astounded at how often people repeat the same failed arguments, but, somehow, I still am. This proves I'm not yet cynical enough. There's so much wrong with the article linked to that I'm not sure where to begin.<br /><br />a)The issue of anthropogenic global warming isn't a matter of faith. The hypothesis can be proven or disproven to as high a degree of certainty as anything can be, meaning, we are up to the "What if we're all brains in a jar?" level of "doubt" -- the sort of "doubt" that basically declares knowledge impossible in the first place. If someone is unconvinced by the evidence thus far, and if they're honest, they will be able to articulate precisely what evidence will convince them -- and, likewise, those who find the evidence convincing ought to be able to suggest an experiment which will make them change their mind.<br /><br />b)Once again, though, we see the biggest fallacy of Pascal's Sucker Bet -- that the only choice is Atheism or Christianity (and, usually, only one narrow flavor of Christianity). To every "Well, surely hell is worth avoiding, right?" argument, I can reply, "What if we die and we find Odin has barred us from Valhalla because we died the straw death and did not slay many foes in battle?" Surely, an eternity barred from eternal drinking, wenching, and battle is horrid; I should go right out and attack someone with an axe! If you don't see this as exactly the same proposal... you are not thinking about the issue clearly. 'Nuff said.<br /><br />c)The wager ignores opportunity cost. If this is the only life I have, then every hour spent in church, or every otherwise moral pleasure not indulged in because it is "sinful", or every choice I do not make solely because I fear God's wrath, is a loss I will never recover, and it's cold comfort to know I'll never KNOW how much I wasted my life because I won't exist. <br /><br />Only if one could eliminate, absolutely, every single possible religion, faith, and belief system besides Christianity would the wager make any sense... and if you could do that, there'd be no wager, since there'd be no doubt remaining. Good luck with that. Until then, though, anyone bringing up Pascal's Wager can be pretty much dumped into one of two categories: Those so locked into their own belief systems they don't even realize the wager's flaw, and those who do realize it but hope their audience does not. (This is known among philosophers as Megatron's Question, from a time when he once asked Starscream "Are you lying or just stupid?")Lizardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11612692415592670468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39697856073685364592011-09-07T02:49:13.864-07:002011-09-07T02:49:13.864-07:00Wow! after reading this thread I think I agree wit...Wow! after reading this thread I think I agree with old Ambrose--"sed non in dialectica complacuit Deo salvum facere populum suum". Blessings!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59977790628707403332011-09-06T20:19:27.544-07:002011-09-06T20:19:27.544-07:00I like what Oxfam has done in Tuvalu.
I have some...I like what Oxfam has done in Tuvalu.<br /><br />I have some interest in Tuvalu, since I live in the tropical Pacific :)<br /><br />At 2mm sea level rise a year, it will be centuries before well made seawalls are not enough there, _ignoring_ the typhoons.<br /><br />The _real_ problem there is as it always has been: the surge from a big typhoon submerges everything.<br /><br />That may only be worse in the future.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3734464797811967182011-09-06T19:03:59.054-07:002011-09-06T19:03:59.054-07:00So take a moment to reflect.
If there really is A...<i>So take a moment to reflect.</i><br /><br />If there really is AGW, then by now most of the damage has been done or is inevitable and we should devote resources primarily to compensating for it rather than trying to halt it.<br /><br />Loud and clear.ABSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19596621822706626622011-09-06T18:45:00.070-07:002011-09-06T18:45:00.070-07:00And talking about the effects of Global Warming [u...And talking about the effects of Global Warming [used synonymously though incorrectly with Climate Change which is the correct climatological circumstance that characterize the wider ramifications of anthropogenic carbon release into the atmosphere], just talk to the Pacific Islanders, whose back yards are afloat with water each and every high tide. <br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IovmF3MQrpc<br /><br />http://www.oxfam.org.nz/what-we-do/issues/climate-change/videos<br /><br />Please spend some time and watch these accounts. This has occurred not over centuries or millennia but over the past 50 years and increasingly so. To most of you the shift is imperceptible, inconsequential and either incremental or non-existence; to the Islanders, whose margins for existence on their lands is far more critical, they have experienced the change in their lifetime.<br /><br />So take a moment to reflect.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44301688278795882822011-09-06T18:42:35.414-07:002011-09-06T18:42:35.414-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64618861183514867992011-09-06T18:21:28.150-07:002011-09-06T18:21:28.150-07:00Pascal's Wager is nonsense, of course. Primar...Pascal's Wager is nonsense, of course. Primarily because his perspective is based on the narrowest of religious views, the view that christianity is the one and only true religion. But is it? Who is to say that Ganesh, son of Shiva is not the right god? <br /><br />In these days of wider recognition and acknowledgement that there are so many different forms and kinds of gods, are we to include every god extant in the world to hedge our bets against picking the wrong god? <br /><br />Bloody nonsense.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48523712442799488592011-09-06T15:51:41.224-07:002011-09-06T15:51:41.224-07:00And to note: the mixed-strategy objection does not...<i>And to note: the mixed-strategy objection does not make the preference of a death-bed conversion irrational; it makes it `equirational'. So a person who converts on their deathbed due to Pascal's Wager is not irrational by virtue of doing so. Instead, it is also rational to not do so.</i><br /><br />Right, that I understood - but I still think that's wrong for that situation, and arguably for situations preceding it. But we've been over that already, so I'll leave it at that for now.<br /><br /><i>As he puts it `romantically': choose in accordance with the person you expect to be when you have chosen. But even this is not comprehensive, and does not resolve `Newcomb-like' paradoxes.</i><br /><br />Right, I get that there's no universally agreed upon 'perfect' decision theory out there as of now, possibly ever. But that seems to suggest that all of these theories come with a stipulation of, "This strategy is rational, IF (you take for granted these various points which can reasonably be questioned)". It goes in part back to the complaint that the reasoning would be ad hoc.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43927636861145461882011-09-06T12:16:11.213-07:002011-09-06T12:16:11.213-07:00What I find fascinating in the above discussions i...What I find fascinating in the above discussions is in doing as the article says, and substituting global warming for Christianity in the comments above.<br /><br />It actually does work to some degree. This says more about global warming than it does about any god :)Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11049029122930062732011-09-06T11:58:50.982-07:002011-09-06T11:58:50.982-07:00Alright, then another question. Do you think a per...<i>Alright, then another question. Do you think a person can reject or be skeptical of decision theory and remain rational? The impression I'm getting is that you clearly believe a person can be rational while disputing a particular result of the math (back to the deathbed example.) I also get the impression you believe there are a number of rivals to decision theory (or rival decision theories?) a person could accept while still being rational.</i><br /><br />There are various incompletenesses in the case for Bayesianism and in decision-theoretic accounts, in which there are differences. Some of these are surveyed by Hájek, but a few in particular are discussed in <i>The Logic of Decision</i>, mainly two. One important difference is whether or not utilities are subject to a fixed upper bound, as opposed to being allowed to take any finite value. Other differences include such criteria as `ratifiability' - proposed by Jeffrey - which states that `choiceworthy' (another issue) actions are those which may select one of multiple options in a way that the selected option remains optimal - as compared with the alternative possibilities - once one has decided to undertake it. As he puts it `romantically': choose in accordance with the person you expect to be when you have chosen. But even this is not comprehensive, and does not resolve `Newcomb-like' paradoxes.<br /><br />And to note: the mixed-strategy objection does not make the preference of a death-bed conversion irrational; it makes it `equirational'. So a person who converts on their deathbed due to Pascal's Wager is not irrational by virtue of doing so. Instead, it is also rational to not do so.Jesse Parrishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811498368484905340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26718827763054480932011-09-06T11:03:13.657-07:002011-09-06T11:03:13.657-07:00Jesse,
But I don't demand that everybody sit ...Jesse,<br /><br /><i>But I don't demand that everybody sit down and do the calculations. Rather, if they're rational (in the Bayesian sense), those calculations if performed would corroborate their decision.</i><br /><br />Alright, then another question. Do you think a person can reject or be skeptical of decision theory and remain rational? The impression I'm getting is that you clearly believe a person can be rational while disputing a particular result of the math (back to the deathbed example.) I also get the impression you believe there are a number of rivals to decision theory (or rival decision theories?) a person could accept while still being rational.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38448672476190137922011-09-06T10:50:11.990-07:002011-09-06T10:50:11.990-07:00Let me ask you this, since I'm curious. Let...<i>Let me ask you this, since I'm curious. Let's say someone is of the opinion that buying car X would be preferable to buying car Y. Would you maintain that the reasoning they supply couldn't be sound, valid and reasonable if they didn't make use of decision theory, complete with probabilities calculations and the matrixes?</i><br /><br />That sort of reasoning would be sound, if put into actual decision-theoretic form. (Don't forget that we argue to strategies in decision theory, not directly to outcomes.) But I don't demand that everybody sit down and do the calculations. Rather, if they're rational (in the Bayesian sense), those calculations if performed would corroborate their decision.<br /><br /><i>Sure they can, but's back to my worry that this kind of thinking relies heavily on the assumption that any given irreligious will jump for any conceivable objection to resist any force of the argument. I'm skeptical of that. Maybe that sort of reasoning makes the argument less interesting to you (say, you want something with closer to universal force, or at least some threshold).</i><br /><br />Well, I think there are plenty of objections which leave the argument without force. But there are a lot of conceivable objections to the Wager which I think misguided, as I've mentioned. Again, I think it's worth understanding.<br /><br /><i>Wikipedia's entry for Von Neumann gives a reference to a wager article which in turns gives another reference to Macrae's biography. It's thin on particular details - maybe the wager was what resulted indirectly in that intellectual compatibility - but there it is.</i><br /><br />Thanks! I'll give it a look. I know very little about Von Neumann's life, except the usual legendary stuff about incredible head computations.Jesse Parrishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811498368484905340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47841828552618984242011-09-06T10:32:18.253-07:002011-09-06T10:32:18.253-07:00Jesse,
The assumptions which lead to the difficul...Jesse,<br /><br /><i>The assumptions which lead to the difficulties follow from wagering on possible outcomes in the afterlife. What you wager to is irrelevant to this, as the math remains the same</i><br /><br />Let me ask you this, since I'm curious. Let's say someone is of the opinion that buying car X would be preferable to buying car Y. Would you maintain that the reasoning they supply couldn't be sound, valid and reasonable if they didn't make use of decision theory, complete with probabilities calculations and the matrixes?<br /><br />It's not a flippant question, I'm really curious how you consider exchanges like that.<br /><br /><i>Not exactly; an argument can be sound and valid, but that soundness can be restricted. People have differing priors. And even if a theistic person sticks with finite utilities and finds that table `sound' and has reduced alternatives to e.g. Christianity to a very small probability, all of these premises may be disputed by an atheist.</i><br /><br />Sure they can, but's back to my worry that this kind of thinking relies heavily on the assumption that any given irreligious will jump for any conceivable objection to resist any force of the argument. I'm skeptical of that. Maybe that sort of reasoning makes the argument less interesting to you (say, you want something with closer to universal force, or at least some threshold).<br /><br /><i>Do you have a source for this? I read one brief biographical article, but the only mention of his deathbed was that he recognized (while disliking) his imminent demise and took the sacraments from a priest invited on a criterion of `intellectual compatibility'.</i><br /><br />Wikipedia's entry for Von Neumann gives a reference to a wager article which in turns gives another reference to Macrae's biography. It's thin on particular details - maybe the wager was what resulted indirectly in that intellectual compatibility - but there it is.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52871843634808340422011-09-06T09:14:34.952-07:002011-09-06T09:14:34.952-07:00Crude,
As I said earlier, I don't think the p...Crude,<br /><br /><i>As I said earlier, I don't think the point of every argument is to 'result in belief' pure and simple.</i><br /><br />It works as well as applied `belief in theism' or even `accepting something other than popular version of atheism Y'. The assumptions which lead to the difficulties follow from wagering on possible outcomes in the afterlife. What you wager <i>to</i> is irrelevant to this, as the math remains the same (as seen from the mixed strategy objections or objections to soundness or the need for specified order relations between various combinations of utilities/probabilities, etc.)<br /><br /><i>"Convincing" seems redundant.</i><br /><br />Not exactly; an argument can be sound and valid, but that soundness can be restricted. People have differing priors. And even if a theistic person sticks with finite utilities and finds that table `sound' and has reduced alternatives to e.g. Christianity to a very small probability, all of these premises may be disputed by an atheist. This is also true for premises based on intuitions, which might not be shared. (A particularly famous example involves Craig's KCA and actual infinities, though I am unsure that the intuition should even be relevant.)<br /><br /><i>Supposedly Von Neumann converted on his deathbed due to the wager.</i><br /><br />Do you have a source for this? I read one brief biographical article, but the only mention of his deathbed was that he recognized (while disliking) his imminent demise and took the sacraments from a priest invited on a criterion of `intellectual compatibility'. It's entirely possible that he said, "oh yes, the Wager, that does it for me," but I have yet to see any account, or even a source for a rumor.<br /><br />(You'll understand my general suspicion of deathbed conversion stories, I hope.)<br /><br />unkleE,<br /><br /><i>But because the consequences of God's existence may be huge, she may decide to give it more attention. I don't see how that choice would be unsound.</i><br /><br />I think that atheists tend to recognize the importance of religions in the here-and-now as we take them to be.<br /><br /><i>As a christian, I don't think I have ever used it, except in the form above, and not to argue someone else into thinking again, but to explain why I think the questions of God's existence are important.</i><br /><br />All fair enough. Anyone even vaguely familiar with Christian doctrine should recognize things like this, whether it's the afterlife or exclusive salvation or The Great Commission or ethics generally or you name it.<br /><br /><i>I have never thought of the wager in those terms, but rather as a matter of potentially lost opportunity, and I don't believe in the conventional hell anyway.</i><br /><br />This is how atheists often respond to the Wager - objecting even to promises of reward. I think it is often a mistaken response, since I don't think many realize that Pascal was not arguing for atheists to try to `trick' God or `flip the belief switch'. It's a little better than what Hitchens calls it, which is `hucksterism'. That, or they restrict themselves entirely to the `many gods objection' (more properly, the `many theologies objection'). But the paradoxes of decision theory are <i>so</i> much more interesting!Jesse Parrishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811498368484905340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23074548261704326072011-09-06T08:22:17.439-07:002011-09-06T08:22:17.439-07:00"Pascal's wager is part of a model for th..."Pascal's wager is part of a model for thinking that will either be useful or not, and seems to not be very useful."<br /><br />I have a feeling the afterlife might provide you with cause for a reassessment of your estimate...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67949895428244193752011-09-06T06:26:35.549-07:002011-09-06T06:26:35.549-07:00One main difference between global warming and Pas...One main difference between global warming and Pascal's wager is that the first is derived from empirical evidence, the second from formal reasoning. Global warming can never be proven, but our models of warming have been tested and have been shown to be highly accurate. Pascal's wager is part of a model for thinking that will either be useful or not, and seems to not be very useful. Tyi8ng one to the other is a category error.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90581005986332829762011-09-06T05:44:03.224-07:002011-09-06T05:44:03.224-07:00"However, since it is not sound or valid, I w...<i>"However, since it is not sound or valid, I would recommend finding a different way to invite investigation."</i><br />We all have lives to live and limited time and resources to investigate truth and make decisions. Thus we all make pragmatic decisions of what to think about and what to put aside. A sort of triage of things to think about.<br /><br />So an agnostic might be inclined to think God's existence is not very likely, and put the question aside to focus on other things like earning a living or developing an ethical approach to life. But because the consequences of God's existence may be huge, she may decide to give it more attention. I don't see how that choice would be unsound.<br /><br /><i>"I would recommend finding a different way to invite investigation."</i><br />As a christian, I don't think I have ever used it, except in the form above, and not to argue someone else into thinking again, but to explain why I think the questions of God's existence are important.<br /><br /><i>"A threat of Hell? "</i><br />I have never thought of the wager in those terms, but rather as a matter of potentially lost opportunity, and I don't believe in the conventional hell anyway.unkleEhttps://theway21stcentury.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com