New? take on Pascal's wager
John Siegel
discussed among things Pascal's wager. It mentioned an argument for why
it is wrong that I don't think I have seen before. What was really
interesting about it was that it would negate it in the theists own terms.
Basically the idea was that if you just chose to believe in order to win
the wager than an omniscient god would see through that anyway.
Is this novel? Or does this argument also have a long history as do
other arguments that repeatedly appear here?
John
Chris Johnson
> A column on the editorial page of yesterday's (Friday) NY Times
> discussed among things Pascal's wager. It mentioned an argument for why
> it is wrong that I don't think I have seen before. What was really
> interesting about it was that it would negate it in the theists own terms.
>
> Basically the idea was that if you just chose to believe in order to win
> the wager than an omniscient god would see through that anyway.
>
> Is this novel?
Nope. I've seen it before, from theists and atheists alike. I suspect
it holds more weight with Christians than the "which god" argument,
since most can't quite grasp the equivalence between their god and the
countless other ones they don't believe in.
Terry Austin
news:47642BA0...@worldnet.att.net:
That particular analysis is about five minutes younger than the wager
itself.
--
Terry Austin
Beware the other head of science. It bites.
Fred Stone
> A column on the editorial page of yesterday's (Friday) NY Times
It's been around alt.atheism for at least as long as I have, which is going
on ten years now.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing compensates for the
model sensitivity." - IPCC Report
Sanity's Little Helper
> A column on the editorial page of yesterday's (Friday) NY Times
> discussed among things Pascal's wager. It mentioned an argument for
> why it is wrong that I don't think I have seen before. What was
> really interesting about it was that it would negate it in the theists
> own terms.
>
> Basically the idea was that if you just chose to believe in order to
> win the wager than an omniscient god would see through that anyway.
>
It's also morally bankrupt.
> Is this novel? Or does this argument also have a long history as do
> other arguments that repeatedly appear here?
> John
>
>
It doesn't matter how many time you challenge theists and they don't have
an answer, they still repeat the same bullshit.
--
David Silverman C.B.E.
aa #2208
Lord Mayor of Awphucket
And now, today's sponsor message:
For the beluga caviar of stupidity, it's got to be...
Brian Carey.
Available in a newsgroup near you.
John Siegel
Fred Stone wrote:
> John Siegel <JohnA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> news:47642BA0...@worldnet.att.net:
>
>
>>A column on the editorial page of yesterday's (Friday) NY Times
>>discussed among things Pascal's wager. It mentioned an argument for
>>why it is wrong that I don't think I have seen before. What was
>>really interesting about it was that it would negate it in the theists
>>own terms.
>>
>>Basically the idea was that if you just chose to believe in order to
>>win the wager than an omniscient god would see through that anyway.
>>
>>Is this novel? Or does this argument also have a long history as do
>>other arguments that repeatedly appear here?
>>
>
>
> It's been around alt.atheism for at least as long as I have, which is going
> on ten years now.
>
I guess I hadn't seen it because of skipping posts from theists who
think they
just came up with a bright new idea. However it is a bit novel for the
Times.
John
Michael Gray
No, it is not novel, in fact, I believe that such an argument was
circulating in the 18th century.
The only practical defences against it are:
* That the deity or pantheon of deities are not omniscient
* That the deity is a capricious bastard
Kenny McCormack
Michael Gray <mike...@newsguy.com> wrote:
...
>No, it is not novel, in fact, I believe that such an argument was
>circulating in the 18th century.
>
>The only practical defences against it are:
>* That the deity or pantheon of deities are not omniscient
>* That the deity is a capricious bastard
Or that, just like his earthly counterparts, He doesn't give a rat's ass
about the actuals, only the form - i.e., that people go through the
motions of "believing"/"having faith"/"etc".
Michael Gray
Exactly.
My second "defence" covered that option, albeit cryptically.
Kenny McCormack
Michael Gray <mike...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:02:04 +0000 (UTC),
>gaz...@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>
>>In article <jjp8m39a7fs8v161b...@4ax.com>,
>>Michael Gray <mike...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>...
>>>No, it is not novel, in fact, I believe that such an argument was
>>>circulating in the 18th century.
>>>
>>>The only practical defences against it are:
>>>* That the deity or pantheon of deities are not omniscient
>>>* That the deity is a capricious bastard
>>
>>Or that, just like his earthly counterparts, He doesn't give a rat's ass
>>about the actuals, only the form - i.e., that people go through the
>>motions of "believing"/"having faith"/"etc".
>
>Exactly.
>My second "defence" covered that option, albeit cryptically.
I assumed as much. Just wanted to make it explicit for the rest of the
folks...
Christopher A.Lee
<JohnA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
It's one of the common responses here.
>John
Michael Gray
gaz...@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>In article <mg19m3hh0f5ro9r22...@4ax.com>,
>Michael Gray <mike...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:02:04 +0000 (UTC),
>>gaz...@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <jjp8m39a7fs8v161b...@4ax.com>,
>>>Michael Gray <mike...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>...
>>>>No, it is not novel, in fact, I believe that such an argument was
>>>>circulating in the 18th century.
>>>>
>>>>The only practical defences against it are:
>>>>* That the deity or pantheon of deities are not omniscient
>>>>* That the deity is a capricious bastard
>>>
>>>Or that, just like his earthly counterparts, He doesn't give a rat's ass
>>>about the actuals, only the form - i.e., that people go through the
>>>motions of "believing"/"having faith"/"etc".
>>
>>Exactly.
>>My second "defence" covered that option, albeit cryptically.
>
>I assumed as much. Just wanted to make it explicit for the rest of the
>folks...
Of course, I meant to say "elliptically" instead of "cryptically".
How silly of me.
raven1
If the deity is a capricious bastard, the Wager itself is useless, as
he might decide to condemn you on a whim regardless of whether one's
belief is sincere or not.
---
"Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers..."
Michael Gray
Exactly!
Give the man a cigar!