Fine tuned universe

[Atheist-Lite]

So, one stray gamma ray burst and Earth is a crispy critter. Very finely tuned, eh what?

Maybe the fine-tuner doesn't like us? Playing devils advocate for a moment...

IF he/she/it exists I'd say they flat out hate us.

If a god exists, that is an an entirely feasible notion, and that tiny sect of nutters calling itself the Westboro Southern Baptists would turn out to be entirely correct.

That's been my thinking for a while. If God does turn out to exist we are in some deep shit.

[Seth]

So, one stray gamma ray burst and Earth is a crispy critter. Very finely tuned, eh what?

Maybe the fine-tuner doesn't like us? Playing devils advocate for a moment...

IF he/she/it exists I'd say they flat out hate us.

If a god exists, that is an an entirely feasible notion, and that tiny sect of nutters calling itself the Westboro Southern Baptists would turn out to be entirely correct.

That's been my thinking for a while. If God does turn out to exist we are in some deep shit.

And therefore, Pascal's Wager...

And just by the way, if one truly believes in God (whether it's a delusion or not) then obedience to God is not irrational or crazy, it's the only really sane thing to do, given the ultimate consequences.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And therefore, The God Delusion...

[Coito ergo sum]

And therefore, Pascal's Wager...

And just by the way, if one truly believes in God (whether it's a delusion or not) then obedience to God is not irrational or crazy, it's the only really sane thing to do, given the ultimate consequences.

Pascal's Wager only applies if what one "believes" matters in terms of what the god that turns out to exist does to one. And, it assumes that belief can be contrived or self-serving, as opposed to honestly held.

So, Pascal's Wager is more like: If you don't believe in a particular god, then you might have bad things happen to you, if that god requires belief in order to not do bad things to you. So, what do you have to lose except to fake belief in that god?

Unless, of course, one is able to convince oneself to honestly believe something one honestly doesn't believe....

I think, ultimately, the only sane thing to do is to be honest and true to oneself, and use the cognitive abilities one has to come to the best conclusion one can reach. Beyond that, it's at best guesswork. And, it seems to me that any sort of benign deity would value honest, yet mistaken, use of one's faculties (which were bestowed up on by said deity), rather than a contrived belief out of a desire for personal gain. The former seems more like what a good god would want, and the latter seems more like what would be desired by a dishonest god. If there is a god, and it's the latter then all bets are off anyway, and we can't be sure that it won't harm even the most honest and devout believer.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Pascal's wager assumes that the god or gods in question can be fooled by a mere mortal. Still not impressed.

[Seth]

Pascal's wager assumes that the god or gods in question can be fooled by a mere mortal. Still not impressed.

Not really.

Pascal’s Wager (also known as Pascal’s Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal that, since the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved through reason, and there is much to be gained from wagering that God exists and little to be gained from wagering that God doesn’t exist, a rational person should simply wager that God exists and live accordingly.

Following his argument establishing the Wager, Pascal addressed the fact that many rational people (in spite of being able to reason advantages) will have difficulty genuinely believing in God. He thus prescribed one to live "as though he had faith" and postulated that (like Tolstoy in his autobiographical "A Confession") this might help to subvert their contrary passions and lead to more genuine belief.

Pascal addressed a lack of belief by suggesting that one create the belief through one's voluntary actions as if one had faith, so that over time the belief would become genuine.

This is the basis of almost all religious education, and it works quite well particularly with children, which is why the Jesuits say "give me the child till age eight and I shall give you the man."

Any priest will tell you that if you don't practice your faith, you stand to lose it. That's why they have church services every Sunday and church activities regularly. They know that not living in one's faith will often cause it to fade away.

So, Pascal is right (and so am I) and you are once again wrong.

[Atheist-Lite]

God might or might not exist but people, dumb-arse people, with pitchforks do and my beliefs are mostly determined by the number of pitchforks being waved about.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

God might or might not exist but people, dumb-arse people, with pitchforks do and my beliefs are mostly determined by the number of pitchforks being waved about.

That's the way it is with most people. They don't dare buck the local religion(s) or they get chased into a windmill and the thing is burned down.

[Seth]

And therefore, Pascal's Wager...

And just by the way, if one truly believes in God (whether it's a delusion or not) then obedience to God is not irrational or crazy, it's the only really sane thing to do, given the ultimate consequences.

Pascal's Wager only applies if what one "believes" matters in terms of what the god that turns out to exist does to one. And, it assumes that belief can be contrived or self-serving, as opposed to honestly held.

Nope, not quite. The corollary argument by Pascal says that since one cannot prove God's existence either way, one might as well believe and one can make that belief a reality by living as if the wager were true.

So, Pascal's Wager is more like: If you don't believe in a particular god, then you might have bad things happen to you, if that god requires belief in order to not do bad things to you. So, what do you have to lose except to fake belief in that god?

Unless, of course, one is able to convince oneself to honestly believe something one honestly doesn't believe....

And what Pascal is saying, and what every priest and pastor and imam knows is that by living as if you have belief, you can create the belief in your mind and make it "honest."

I think, ultimately, the only sane thing to do is to be honest and true to oneself, and use the cognitive abilities one has to come to the best conclusion one can reach. Beyond that, it's at best guesswork. And, it seems to me that any sort of benign deity would value honest, yet mistaken, use of one's faculties (which were bestowed up on by said deity), rather than a contrived belief out of a desire for personal gain. The former seems more like what a good god would want, and the latter seems more like what would be desired by a dishonest god. If there is a god, and it's the latter then all bets are off anyway, and we can't be sure that it won't harm even the most honest and devout believer.

I think ultimately one ought to look at what it means to live the life of a believer and determine if doing so leads to moral and ethical strength of character and happiness or not. If it does, then Pascal suggests that doing so would be beneficial not only temporally but eternally, if it turns out that God exists.

The question is, of course, whether a specific religious belief and the practices associated with it make one a better person living a happier, more fulfilled life or whether it induces one to strap a bomb to one's chest and kill people. I submit the former is a good thing and people should be encouraged to live good lives, even if it takes a self-imposed God delusion to help them do so. Not everyone is as coldly rational and highly intelligent as the Pope of Atheism, Richard Dawkins, and many people rely upon their faith for solace, succor and as a way to live happier, better lives. And I laud and support them in that, so long as their actions are peaceable, and encourage them to live more godly lives because it's by and large better for society as a whole if they do so.

[Coito ergo sum]

Pascal's wager assumes that the god or gods in question can be fooled by a mere mortal. Still not impressed.

Pascal's Wager is a product of the prejudiced assumption that it doesn't apply to every one of the 10,000-odd gods that were ever worshiped, and/or that belief in some general "God" will suffice to avoid post-death catastrophe. What a lot of people forget is that belief in the wrong god isn't any better, according to many religions, than belief in none at all.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Pascal's wager assumes that the god or gods in question can be fooled by a mere mortal. Still not impressed.

Pascal's Wager is a product of the prejudiced assumption that it doesn't apply to every one of the 10,000-odd gods that were ever worshiped, and/or that belief in some general "God" will suffice to avoid post-death catastrophe. What a lot of people forget is that belief in the wrong god isn't any better, according to many religions, than belief in none at all.

You still have the basic concept, "I'll lie about having faith, God won't spot that."

[Svartalf]

Pascal's wager assumes that the god or gods in question can be fooled by a mere mortal. Still not impressed.

Well, Pascal lived in fear, and fear is a most expedient tool to fool oneself.

[Coito ergo sum]

And therefore, Pascal's Wager...

And just by the way, if one truly believes in God (whether it's a delusion or not) then obedience to God is not irrational or crazy, it's the only really sane thing to do, given the ultimate consequences.

Pascal's Wager only applies if what one "believes" matters in terms of what the god that turns out to exist does to one. And, it assumes that belief can be contrived or self-serving, as opposed to honestly held.

Nope, not quite. The corollary argument by Pascal says that since one cannot prove God's existence either way, one might as well believe and one can make that belief a reality by living as if the wager were true.

Nope. Not quite. If I "live as if" I believe I have a dog, that doesn't mean I believe I have a dog. I'm just pretending.

And, why do you insist on referring to "God?" Don't you mean "since one cannot prove any gods' existences either way, one might as well pick one or more to believe in? Why does Pascal's Wager, in your mind, only apply to God and not other gods.

So, Pascal's Wager is more like: If you don't believe in a particular god, then you might have bad things happen to you, if that god requires belief in order to not do bad things to you. So, what do you have to lose except to fake belief in that god?

Unless, of course, one is able to convince oneself to honestly believe something one honestly doesn't believe....

And what Pascal is saying, and what every priest and pastor and imam knows is that by living as if you have belief, you can create the belief in your mind and make it "honest."

In other words, you might be able to honestly change your mind. Of course that is true.

But which god do you choose? Do I live as if Allah exists, or do I live as if Jehovah exists or do I live as if the Aton exists? Do I live as if the Goddess exists? Or, is Pascal's Wager a way of saying that we should pick the deity that promises the worst outcome by virtue of nonbelief?

I think, ultimately, the only sane thing to do is to be honest and true to oneself, and use the cognitive abilities one has to come to the best conclusion one can reach. Beyond that, it's at best guesswork. And, it seems to me that any sort of benign deity would value honest, yet mistaken, use of one's faculties (which were bestowed up on by said deity), rather than a contrived belief out of a desire for personal gain. The former seems more like what a good god would want, and the latter seems more like what would be desired by a dishonest god. If there is a god, and it's the latter then all bets are off anyway, and we can't be sure that it won't harm even the most honest and devout believer.

I think ultimately one ought to look at what it means to live the life of a believer and determine if doing so leads to moral and ethical strength of character and happiness or not. If it does, then Pascal suggests that doing so would be beneficial not only temporally but eternally, if it turns out that God exists.

It clearly doesn't mean just one thing to "live the life of a believer," and the "believers" are all over the map. There is no such thing as "the" life of a believer. So, your task has to be rephrased to, "...ultimately one ought to look at what it means to live one or more of the lives of one or more of the believers of one or more of the various and myriad religions and determine if any of them lead to moral and ethical strength of character and happiness or not." One can't live the life of a believer in Allah and also be living the life of a believer in Yahweh.

For me, it appears painfully obvious that generally speaking believers in any religion or deity do not have more moral or ethical strength of character and they do not have more happiness. It seems, at best, an equivalence. Some Allah believers are happy, some not. Some Jehovah believers are happy, some not. Some Yahweh believers are happy, some not. Some atheists are happy, some not. I see no indication that there is a greater prevalence of happiness among any group of believers or nonbelievers.

The question is, of course, whether a specific religious belief and the practices associated with it make one a better person living a happier, more fulfilled life or whether it induces one to strap a bomb to one's chest and kill people. I submit the former is a good thing and people should be encouraged to live good lives, even if it takes a self-imposed God delusion to help them do so.

Unless of course, one wants to apply Pascal's Wager to the pro-bomb-strapping deity....then, of course, one ought to live life as if that deity exists, and thusly transform one's mind to an honest belief in the pro-bomb-strapping deity.

Not everyone is as coldly rational and highly intelligent as the Pope of Atheism, Richard Dawkins, and many people rely upon their faith for solace, succor and as a way to live happier, better lives.

Many people use a lot of different things for solace, succor and a way to live a happier, better life. To me, I find atheism to provide solace and succor, as it takes away any threat of eternal damnation, and removes the fear that the religions that warn against hells and hadeses and purgatories impose. "Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism." Isaac Asimov.

And I laud and support them in that, so long as their actions are peaceable, and encourage them to live more godly lives because it's by and large better for society as a whole if they do so.

I laud people for leading goodly, not godly lives. I just add an "o," but it does to me seem to make a world of difference. If people were to live goodly lives - better lives - then that would make society as a whole better. Whether they worship a god or not doesn't do anything, in my view, nor is the mere fact of following a god or gods something to be, in my view, lauded. Living a good life is to be lauded.

[Coito ergo sum]

Pascal's wager assumes that the god or gods in question can be fooled by a mere mortal. Still not impressed.

Pascal's Wager is a product of the prejudiced assumption that it doesn't apply to every one of the 10,000-odd gods that were ever worshiped, and/or that belief in some general "God" will suffice to avoid post-death catastrophe. What a lot of people forget is that belief in the wrong god isn't any better, according to many religions, than belief in none at all.

You still have the basic concept, "I'll lie about having faith, God won't spot that."

Yep. Seth tries to fix that by saying that if you pretend hard enough, you'll eventually convince yourself that what you were faking before is actually true. I.e. god wants people to brainwash themselves.

[Coito ergo sum]

Pascal's wager assumes that the god or gods in question can be fooled by a mere mortal. Still not impressed.

Not really.

Pascal’s Wager (also known as Pascal’s Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal that, since the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved through reason, and there is much to be gained from wagering that God exists and little to be gained from wagering that God doesn’t exist, a rational person should simply wager that God exists and live accordingly.

Following his argument establishing the Wager, Pascal addressed the fact that many rational people (in spite of being able to reason advantages) will have difficulty genuinely believing in God. He thus prescribed one to live "as though he had faith" and postulated that (like Tolstoy in his autobiographical "A Confession") this might help to subvert their contrary passions and lead to more genuine belief.

Pascal addressed a lack of belief by suggesting that one create the belief through one's voluntary actions as if one had faith, so that over time the belief would become genuine.

This is the basis of almost all religious education, and it works quite well particularly with children, which is why the Jesuits say "give me the child till age eight and I shall give you the man."

Any priest will tell you that if you don't practice your faith, you stand to lose it. That's why they have church services every Sunday and church activities regularly. They know that not living in one's faith will often cause it to fade away.

So, Pascal is right (and so am I) and you are once again wrong.

The trouble with Pascal, again, is that he didn't factor in the fact that the choice is not binary. It's not either exist or not exist. It's no gods exist, or one or more of an indefinite number of gods exists, and one or more of an indefinite number of concepts of each of those gods often determines whether the believer is saved from negative post-death repercussions. One can certainly believe in a god or gods, or even God, and still be unsaved. Are the Catholics right, and mere belief is not enough, one must repent and atone and confess, etc.? Are the denominations that believe only 144,000 will be saved, and the rest of the believers will be damned? Were the Vikings correct, and one needs to die in battle in order to be in Valhalla rather than Hel?

I.e. - Pascal's Wager presents a false choice in that even believing in a god or gods, even living according to what the belief in the particular god or gods entails, may very likely not be enough.