philosophical/religious...all paths being equal

[jim stone]

The problem again is false dichotomy: you are presented the issue in a way which makes it seem there are only two possibilities.

But what if there are many gods? Or one God but he raises us for nutritious between-meal snacks to be eaten in those off hours when He's not munching down whole worlds? What if there is one Goddess and She is really pissed at all this masculine stuff and anybody who believes in a male god She's gonna sentence to endless torture? What is there are no gods at all, there is merely a Something which is totally indifferent to us or our fortunes? And so on, and so on, and so on....

In fact, instead of two choices, there are infinitely many, and as such the chances of any one being correct, instead of a 50/50 coin toss, actually infinitely approaches zero.

That's why Pascal's Wager is a really bad way to bet.

--James

This was one of the many objections raised to Pascal.
It's called the 'many gods' objection.
Indeed, might there not be a shy, reclusive God
who loathes people who worship him, and so on.
So one has everything to lose and nothing to win
in leading a religious life.

I'm not sure there is a good answer to it.
However the reasoning, the game theory, has survived
and been deployed in other contexts, e.g. nuclear
deterrence theory.

To the extent that there may be a response, it might
go like this:

If there is no god or merely something indifferent,
which Pascal is willing to allow, the Wager just
goes through. Bet that there's something that
wants us to worship him, because, if there is,
we win. If there is nothing we have nothing to lose,
anyhow, if complete atheism is correct.
Unless, of course, we KNOW that atheism
is correct, but we don't. So if there's nothing, we're cool.
Wager away.

Suppose that there is something, some divinity or
set of divinities. If they don't care about us,
again the Wager goes through--unless we know it.

Suppose that he/she/they care about us. They
will respond positively or negatively to worship
and relationship.

It's possible, but not very plausible, that they hate
relationship with us--why would they? It's more likely
that they want relationship with us. Really a shy
divinity makes less sense than one who
isn't shy--divinities, gods being divine, powerful,
and so on.

Then either they will hate us for worshipping the
wrong god or they won't. But hating us for worshipping
gods we never heard of doesn't make sense, it's
irrational, and divinities are more likely to be
intelligent and reasonably rational than morons.
If the'yre that silly, they might hate us for not
worshipping them if we don't worship anybody!

So if I then worship God, I'm certainly taking a chance,
but I may get it right and there is no hope of doing so
if i don't worship ANYBODY. I might as well take
a chance, because I can win big--and though there
is something to lose I might lose it just as well
if I don't worship God.

Further there is an old tradition in Christianity,
that of the good pagan, who worships the Golden
Calf or whatever so well, so truly, that he worships
Jesus--he worships the divinity in that thing and
so finds the true God without knowing it.
(This is portrayed to great effect in C. S. Lewis's
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe) And it's
in Hinduism too--for Krishna (who is really Vishnu)
says in the Gita: 'Anybody who worships anything
with true devotion, worships me!'

So even if I go wrong in form I may get it right
in substance and end up worshipping the true
god and getting the reward.

For all these reasons, it may makes sense to
worship God, though the situation is certainly
less clear than Pascal represents it.
Better to take a chance; nothing
ventured, nothing gained.

[Cynth]

For instance I will prove in a moment that nothing exists that will prevent me from posting this message.

It seems like you weren't proving it right at the moment you said it though. The message went through, so then the statement was right. But if it hadn't gone through, the statement would have been wrong. Something doesn't seem right there, but I don't know what it is.

I read that big long thing. It was interestesting. My comments most likely will not reflect that I read it.

A. I guess if I think there is a chance (even a small chance, for me) it is going to snow, I put on my warm clothes and I don't worry about it if the prediction was wrong. I would rather not take the risk of being seriously cold even if that means I might end up lugging my heavy coat around all day for no good reason. Okay.

B. I guess if I think there is a chance (even a small chance, for me) that God exists, I pray to God and I don't worry about it if the prediction was wrong. I would rather not take the risk of being tormented for all eternity even if that means I might end up spending time in worship for no good reason.

I guess my problem is that while I can conceive of it snowing, I cannot conceive that God exists. Some people seem to find that it is a matter of choice whether one believes in God or not. It does not seem that way to me. I don't feel I could just start praying to an entity I didn't believe was there. And if it was there, wouldn't it know I was praying just to hedge my bets? Would it/he/she really go for that?

I am very aware that my mind cannot understand the universe----I cannot conceive of it ending and I cannot conceive of it going on forever. So, there is a big problem. Maybe that big problem is what is God to some people. To me, it is a sign that my brain cannot understand something, but I have no idea what it is or whether I should bow down to it. I don't take it lightly, but I don't feel I can investigate it. It is just what being a human is.

If I concluded there was a high probability that God existed, but I didn't feel sure, what on earth would I do then? I cannot imagine this poor man thinking about these things. I honestly feel he is asking questions that cannot be answered and he is wasting his time. I do not intend to insult him or his scholarship. We are all different.

I certainly think it is wonderful for those who are able to believe in God. I envy them. I just don't like when people get in religious wars.

[Darwin]

He argues that the hypothesis is simple in roughly the same sense that many successful scientific theories have been 'simple', that is, not belabored with complicated presuppositions or assumptions that don't hang together well, seem arbitrary, or cry out for further explanation. This is an important claim for Swinburne, because, he argues that hypotheses which are simple have a higher 'prior probability' than hypotheses which are not simple. The prior probability of a hypothesis is the probability that we would assign it before judging it against the evidence (for or against it) given to us in our experience of the world. Furthermore, Swinburne argues that the hypothesis that God exists is vast in its explanatory scope. Roughly stated, since God is conceived as infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient, it will turn out that for anything and everything that happens anywhere and any time in the universe, we may conceivably refer to God as the ultimate explanation.

The problem with appealing to the existence of God as a simplifying explanation is that it is not. It doesn't really simplify anything. All it does is push the complexity out of view. We're supposed to take all of the complexity of the universe, call it by a single word, "God", and think that it has now become as simple as that single word.

We're not supposed to question how God comes into existence, or how he/she/it functions.

First, he settles on the more modest claim that, in each case, the evidence confirms or increases the probability of God's existence. In other words, the hypothesis that God exists is higher given the evidence (e.g., that the world exists, that it exhibits order, etc.) than it would be if the evidence were otherwise (if the world did not exist; if there were no order, etc.).

These, of course, are nothing more than simple assumptions. There is nothing in the nature of either existence or order that requires us to assume God. If existence on its own is impossible, the God cannot exist on his own. If order on its own is impossible, then God cannot exhibit or produce order on his own.

He then builds a cumulative case designed to show that all of the arguments together (not counting the Argument from Religious Experience) make it plausible to believe that God's existence is, at the very least, not improbable , that is, not less than ½. The modest nature of this claim makes Swinburne's approach up to this point very appealing indeed.

At best, this cumulative approach only works if a substatial number of the arguments can stand on their own. A thousand bogus sub-arguments add up to one bogus final argument.

Finally, delivering the final blow on the very last page of the main text, Swinburne argues that religious experience tips the balance of probability in favor of God's existence. In expounding the argument from religious experience, he makes ample use of what he calls the Principle of Credulity, which says that unless we have some reason to suspect or reject an experience, we should take that experience as veridical. And, since he has already shown that God's existence is not improbable without religious experience, it follows that we should rely on religious experience to conclude that the probability that God's existence is greater than ½. Q.E.D.

If we wanted to believe in God based on the reported experiences of others, whose experiences should we accept? It's no good to just sort of vaguely believe that there might be a God of some kind hanging about. We need a specific God. Shall we accept the experiences of Muhammad, the Pope, Pat Robertson, Joseph Smith, or some random Hare Krishna convert? As for whether we have reason to reject such experiences, the fact that there are so many conflicting reports is reason enough.

Now for some critical comments.

Yep.

[Darwin]

I guess my problem is that while I can conceive of it snowing, I cannot conceive that God exists. Some people seem to find that it is a matter of choice whether one believes in God or not. It does not seem that way to me. I don't feel I could just start praying to an entity I didn't believe was there. And if it was there, wouldn't it know I was praying just to hedge my bets? Would it/he/she really go for that?

If I were going to bet, I'd bet that an omniscient, omnibenevolent God would prefer honest sincerity to bet hedging.

If I concluded there was a high probability that God existed, but I didn't feel sure, what on earth would I do then?

You'd have to spend a good bit of time and thought on every implication of that belief, just to make sure that you got all of the details right. You'd have to look at all the God stories out there and pick the right set to act on. You probably wouldn't have any spare time for C&F.

[jim stone]

For instance I will prove in a moment that nothing exists that will prevent me from posting this message.

It seems like you weren't proving it right at the moment you said it though. The message went through, so then the statement was right. But if it hadn't gone through, the statement would have been wrong. Something doesn't seem right there, but I don't know what it is.

I read that big long thing. It was interestesting. My comments most likely will not reflect that I read it.

A. I guess if I think there is a chance (even a small chance, for me) it is going to snow, I put on my warm clothes and I don't worry about it if the prediction was wrong. I would rather not take the risk of being seriously cold even if that means I might end up lugging my heavy coat around all day for no good reason. Okay.

B. I guess if I think there is a chance (even a small chance, for me) that God exists, I pray to God and I don't worry about it if the prediction was wrong. I would rather not take the risk of being tormented for all eternity even if that means I might end up spending time in worship for no good reason.

I guess my problem is that while I can conceive of it snowing, I cannot conceive that God exists. Some people seem to find that it is a matter of choice whether one believes in God or not. It does not seem that way to me. I don't feel I could just start praying to an entity I didn't believe was there. And if it was there, wouldn't it know I was praying just to hedge my bets? Would it/he/she really go for that?

I am very aware that my mind cannot understand the universe----I cannot conceive of it ending and I cannot conceive of it going on forever. So, there is a big problem. Maybe that big problem is what is God to some people. To me, it is a sign that my brain cannot understand something, but I have no idea what it is or whether I should bow down to it. I don't take it lightly, but I don't feel I can investigate it. It is just what being a human is.

If I concluded there was a high probability that God existed, but I didn't feel sure, what on earth would I do then? I cannot imagine this poor man thinking about these things. I honestly feel he is asking questions that cannot be answered and he is wasting his time. I do not intend to insult him or his scholarship. We are all different.

I certainly think it is wonderful for those who are able to believe in God. I envy them. I just don't like when people get in religious wars.

Two small points--Pascal, to his credit, doesn't mention hell.
He sees it all as a matter of winning or losing eternity.

I have never had any trouble praying to entities that
I don't believe are there. My problem is NOT praying to
them. When I'm in deep Doo-Doo, I pray, sure as
shooting.

But you've put your finger on the issue: the question isn't
a matter of believing, but of praying. I can't choose to believe,
probably, but I can choose to live a religious life.
And if I do, if I go to Church and my friends are
religious people, and I pray as sincerely as I can
(in my case, quite sincerely), sooner or later I
will probably believe sincerely--just as if, supposing
I want to shift my views to the right, I should join
the Marines--sooner or later, my views will shift
to the right.

So one day, when I stand before God, I will say to him:

'Do you know God how I came to love you? I thought it
was a good bet! And so I went to Church and I prayed,
and after awhile it became so clear to me, so very
clear that you exist!'

And God will say: 'There, there, it's all right now...'
Because he won't care how I came to love him
with all my heart. So says Pascal.

[peeplj]

But what if God says, "You're a lukewarm sheep and never had the guts to make up your own mind?"

And then, if I remember Revelations correctly, spews you out of His mouth?

I am not sure that the idea that God wouldn't care why you believe holds much water. In fact, I believe that in Chrisitian doctrine why you believe is supposed to count for a great deal.

Another reason I think Pascal's Wager is a bad bet. If there is a God, and you believe simply because you selfishly think it's your best shot at a nice afterlife, what if that just makes Him mad?

--James

[jim stone]

But what if God says, "You're a lukewarm sheep and never had the guts to make up your own mind?"

And then, if I remember Revelations correctly, spews you out of His mouth?

--James

Another interesting objection. Read the post above, please.

[jim stone]

I guess my problem is that while I can conceive of it snowing, I cannot conceive that God exists. Some people seem to find that it is a matter of choice whether one believes in God or not. It does not seem that way to me. I don't feel I could just start praying to an entity I didn't believe was there. And if it was there, wouldn't it know I was praying just to hedge my bets? Would it/he/she really go for that?

If I were going to bet, I'd bet that an omniscient, omnibenevolent God would prefer honest sincerity to bet hedging.

If I concluded there was a high probability that God existed, but I didn't feel sure, what on earth would I do then?

You'd have to spend a good bit of time and thought on every implication of that belief, just to make sure that you got all of the details right. You'd have to look at all the God stories out there and pick the right set to act on. You probably wouldn't have any spare time for C&F.

If I thought there was a high probability that God
existed, I would pray.

[peeplj]

But what if God says, "You're a lukewarm sheep and never had the guts to make up your own mind?"

And then, if I remember Revelations correctly, spews you out of His mouth?

--James

Another interesting objection. Read the post above, please.

I did. I just don't find Pascal's Wager all that attractive. I think it must have been meant more an as apologetic than as a serious effort to convince the nonreligious why to believe, simply because it is such a bad, weak argument.

--James

[Cynth]

Is this like the Jesus Prayer in "Franey (sp) and Zooey"?

[missy]

Darwin wrote:
"You'd have to look at all the God stories out there and pick the right set to act on."

I know a young person who has done just this. He calls himself a "Unitarian Buddhist". He search all of the religions of the world (or as many as he could from writings and research) and picked all the "good" things each had to offer. He talked with teachers / leaders in many. He even travelled to Japan 2 summers ago to do some studying at a temple there.
If C. is an example of being "religious", then there's still hope for the young people of the world - he is one neat guy (he's 15), and very giving. He is also very accepting of others viewpoints - he'll talk about his own beliefs, but never press others to believe as he does.

Missy

[peeplj]

Lest I be misunderstood, my earlier post comparing religion:reality to OS:computer was not meant to say there is simply nothing at all to religion or that it is all a bunch of bunk.

Far from it, I think it can be a useful tool both for the individual and for society as a whole.

But I don't think that any human religion--indeed, any human perspective or knowledge--can actually accurately reflect actual Reality.

Why did I capitalize the word Reality? For the same reason you capitalize the word God: it is something far too vast and profound for us to truly understand.

--James

[Darwin]

So one day, when I stand before God, I will say to him:

'Do you know God how I came to love you? I thought it
was a good bet! And so I went to Church and I prayed,
and after awhile it became so clear to me, so very
clear that you exist!'

And God will say: 'There, there, it's all right now...'

And Ba'al will say, "What are you doing worshipping that pretender Yahweh? You're in real trouble now."

[jim stone]

There are some distinctions in Leibniz--
there are things that needn't have been,
contingent things, you, me, the planet,
we owe our existence to the agency of other
things. Or things that exist by accident.
Things like this do not exist because
of the kind of thing they are.

By contrast, there is the idea of something
that doesn't exist by accident, nor does
it owe its existence to the agency of
anything else; it is something that could
not have failed to be. Leibniz calls it
a 'self-existent being.' It's existence
is explained by its own nature.
For instance,suppose its nature is to
be the greatest being possible--such a thing
cannot not be, because if it could, we there
could be a greater being, one that
could not not be. So God--the greatest
being possible, is a self-existent being.
And, in addition, all knowing, infallible,
perfectly good and loving, all powerful.

The hypothesis that such a thing exists answers a number of
questions:

Why does the material universe exist at all? It needn't
have been? Why is there something material rather
than nothing?

Why did the Big Bang happen?

Why did it happen in such a way, at such
an exquisite calibration, that life was possible, for if
it had been ever so slightly different, nothing
would have solidified?

How did life come into being?

Why is there conscious experience? Why does it have
the qualititative aspects it does and not others,
or none at all? (note the failure of efforts
to naturalize consciousness; so why does it
exist?)

Why is their intentionality.

Why do we have a moral sense? Why are we convinced
that there are objective moral truths? If there are
such truths, what is their objective ground?

Why is the universe orderly? Why are there
natural laws?

Why do so many of us have a deep yearning for
something divine? Why is a religious sensibility part
of the human condition, for many, if not most,
people?

Swinburne's claim, I think, is that, to the extent
that theism provides answers to all of these
questions, to the extent that it explains so much
so simply, it becomes more plausible. Not that
this proves its truth, not that we might not
suggest other explanations. Or we might suggest
that these are just accidents. But it is a simple
hypothesis that explains a lot of things,
many of which seem to need explaining;
and generally we are entitled to count
such hypotheses as plausible, in the absence
of a good reason to deny them.

The response: But why does God exist?
is that the hypothesis is that there is something
that exists neither by accident nor due to the
agency of other things, something that,
by its very nature, could not have not been.

[Lorenzo]

So one day, when I stand before God, I will say to him:

'Do you know God how I came to love you? I thought it
was a good bet! And so I went to Church and I prayed,
and after awhile it became so clear to me, so very
clear that you exist!'

And God will say: 'There, there, it's all right now...'
Because he won't care how I came to love him
with all my heart. So says Pascal.

"after awhile it became so clear to me"

Never allow something to become clear while under the influence. Belonging, or partaking of the substance, can corrupt objectivity. It's of more value to be objective, and retain your clear mind, than to fall in love with a false God.