| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"John Siegel" |
| Date: |
15 Dec 2007 01:31:48 PM |
| Object: |
New? take on Pascal's wager |
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?
John
.
|
|
| User: "Sanitys Little Helper" |
|
| Title: Re: New? take on Pascal's wager |
15 Dec 2007 03:28:53 PM |
|
|
John Siegel <JohnASiegel@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:47642BA0.5090706@worldnet.att.net to alt.atheism:
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 *****.
--
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.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: New? take on Pascal's wager |
15 Dec 2007 01:55:58 PM |
|
|
John Siegel <JohnASiegel@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:47642BA0.5090706@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.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing compensates for the
model sensitivity." - IPCC Report
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Siegel" |
|
| Title: Re: New? take on Pascal's wager |
15 Dec 2007 05:39:35 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
John Siegel <JohnASiegel@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:47642BA0.5090706@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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Savageduck" |
|
| Title: Re: New? take on Pascal's wager |
15 Dec 2007 07:07:31 PM |
|
|
On 2007-12-15 15:39:35 -0800, John Siegel <JohnASiegel@worldnet.att.net> said:
Fred Stone wrote:
John Siegel <JohnASiegel@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:47642BA0.5090706@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
I think it would be best to understand that the writer, Eduado Porter
was commenting from the point of view of an atheist observing the
current Republican primary race.
He uses old points of discussion regarding the "Wager" and makes no
claim of novelty with the exception of one comment:
"In my view, however, the biggest flaw in Pascal's argument is that it
understates the costs of belief. Because believing, it seems to me, is
not free."
Eduardo Porter
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: New? take on Pascal's wager |
15 Dec 2007 01:49:28 PM |
|
|
John Siegel <JohnASiegel@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:47642BA0.5090706@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?
John
That particular analysis is about five minutes younger than the wager
itself.
--
Terry Austin
Beware the other head of science. It bites.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: New? take on Pascal's wager |
15 Dec 2007 01:45:15 PM |
|
|
On Dec 15, 1:31 pm, John Siegel <JohnASie...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
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.
Or does this argument also have a long history as do
other arguments that repeatedly appear here?
John
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: New? take on Pascal's wager |
15 Dec 2007 09:24:29 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:31:48 GMT, John Siegel
<JohnASiegel@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
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 one of the common responses here.
John
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: New? take on Pascal's wager |
15 Dec 2007 05:45:03 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:31:48 GMT, John Siegel
<JohnASiegel@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
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?
John
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 *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny McCormack" |
|
| Title: Re: New? take on Pascal's wager |
15 Dec 2007 07:02:04 PM |
|
|
In article <jjp8m39a7fs8v161bjui4u5hals2i1ihkt@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@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 *****
Or that, just like his earthly counterparts, He doesn't give a rat's *****
about the actuals, only the form - i.e., that people go through the
motions of "believing"/"having faith"/"etc".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: New? take on Pascal's wager |
15 Dec 2007 07:58:42 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:02:04 +0000 (UTC),
gazelle@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
In article <jjp8m39a7fs8v161bjui4u5hals2i1ihkt@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@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 *****
Or that, just like his earthly counterparts, He doesn't give a rat's *****
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny McCormack" |
|
| Title: Re: New? take on Pascal's wager |
15 Dec 2007 09:18:10 PM |
|
|
In article <mg19m3hh0f5ro9r22uhlspm92l02ph3oj0@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:02:04 +0000 (UTC),
gazelle@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
In article <jjp8m39a7fs8v161bjui4u5hals2i1ihkt@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@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 *****
Or that, just like his earthly counterparts, He doesn't give a rat's *****
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...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: New? take on Pascal's wager |
15 Dec 2007 10:52:42 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 03:18:10 +0000 (UTC),
gazelle@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
In article <mg19m3hh0f5ro9r22uhlspm92l02ph3oj0@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:02:04 +0000 (UTC),
gazelle@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
In article <jjp8m39a7fs8v161bjui4u5hals2i1ihkt@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@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 *****
Or that, just like his earthly counterparts, He doesn't give a rat's *****
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.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: New? take on Pascal's wager |
17 Dec 2007 01:09:48 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:15:03 +1030, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:31:48 GMT, John Siegel
<JohnASiegel@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
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?
John
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 *****
If the deity is a capricious *****, 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..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: New? take on Pascal's wager |
17 Dec 2007 02:43:12 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:09:48 -0500, raven1
<quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:15:03 +1030, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:31:48 GMT, John Siegel
<JohnASiegel@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
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?
John
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 *****
If the deity is a capricious *****, 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.
Exactly!
Give the man a cigar!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
