Russian Roulette and Pascal’s Wager

_{Mark

July 2, 2009

Atheism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

According to Allen McNeil the Gallup poll results for American scientists are:

Young-Earth Creationist = 5%

Guided Evolution = 40%

“Naturalistic” Evolution = 55%

For members of the National Academy of Sciences*, the results are:

Young-Earth Creationist = 3%

Guided Evolution = 14%

“Naturalistic” Evolution = 83%

*data from the Cornell Evolution Project, http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org

So here’s how I read it. One in six of the most accomplished living scientists believe in a living God responsible for the creation of mankind.

Pascal compares the risks of belief and disbelief:

1) If I disbelieve in God and I’m wrong, I lose everything.
2) If I disbelieve in God and I’m right, I gain nothing.
3) If I believe in God and I’m wrong, I lose nothing.
4) If I believe in God and I’m right, I gain everything.

The only rational position to take is #4 where you have everything to gain and nothing to lose. That is Pascal’s Wager.

Now if we take our odds of God being real from the greatest living scientists we find the odds of God being real are 1 in 6 (17%). So this is essentially like playing Russian Roulette with a 6-shot revolver with one bullet in it. If you pull the trigger and nothing happens you gain nothing but if you pull the trigger and the gun fires you lose your life. Why play that game? Even if the odds were a thousand or a million to one against getting a bullet in the head why play?

Dave Scott

Comments

Alan: "Anyone here think they can decide what they believe?" Interesting question Alan.In the end I think we all believe what we most want to believe. I know that does not answer your question but it is somewhat related. Vividvividbleau_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

Oops:- believeAlan Fox_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

There is no use trying; one can’t believe impossible things.” (Alice) “I dare say you haven’t had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” -Queen Vivid
Anyone here think they can decide what they belive?Alan Fox_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

Didn't Richard Dawkins recently say something like there is a one in seven chance that God exists? Then he adjusted the number downward to one out of one hundred. Don't remember the details but if I were debating Dawkins then Pascal's wager would very much apply. Why wouldn't Dawkins spend his life pursuing the one percent possibility of knowing God as opposed to devoting his life to convincing others to disbelieve? I thought these guys were supposed to driven by reason.prhean_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

MK:"Well there is a difference between an uncaused event and something coming from nothing. But both are logically possible" It is not logically possible for something to come from nothing.To argue that something comes from nothing requires the denial of logic, specifically the law of non contradiction, the bedrock of science. The law states simply that A cannot be A and non A. (A-) at the same time and in the same relationship. Something can be A and B at the same time but not in the same relationship. I can be a father A and a son B at the same time but not in the same relationship. For something to come from nothing it must, in effect, create itself. Self creation is a logical and therefore rationally impossibility. For something to create itself, it must have the ability to be and not be at the same tmie and in the same relationship. For something to create itself it must be before it is. Something can be self existent without violating logic, but it cannot be self created MK:"Try allowing yourself to think about the possibility." You mean like this? There is no use trying; one can't believe impossible things." (Alice) "I dare say you haven't had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” -Queen Vividvividbleau_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

#137 Let me be clear. You are saying that it is not illogical to say that something comes into being from nothing? Well there is a difference between an uncaused event and something coming from nothing. But both are logically possible. I know it feels weird. But as I say the universe can be extraordinarly weird. Try allowing yourself to think about the possibility. My bad. I thought somewhere that I read that you were a Professor at Cornell and from that I assumed you were American. I think you were confusing me with Allen MacNeil - which is very flattering. I am not a professor of anything.Mark Frank_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

Barb wrote:
This is where your so-called reasoning completely goes awry. Let’s put the blame on who is really responsible, Mereologist. The Pharaoh of the time of Moses chose to stubbornly oppose God, and so God sent ten plagues, and finally had to wipe out Pharaoh and his hosts in the Red sea. All such were great evils, calamities, which entailed great suffering upon the Egyptians. But they were not wrongs. Pharaoh was the wrongdoer, and God was perfectly within his rights in thus punishing him and thereby settling the issue as to who is supreme.
Barb, You haven't addressed any of the points I raised in my replies to you and to IRQ Conflict. 1. God hardens Pharaoh's heart over and over during the ten plagues. 2. No sane ruler would have failed to let the Hebrews go after three or four plagues at most. However, Pharaoh's behavior makes sense given that God kept hardening his heart. 3. Exodus specifically says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that "my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt." God did it, and Exodus tells us why he did it. 4. Even if the above were not true, and even if Pharaoh really did harden his own heart without interference from God (contrary to the account), how is it fair for the Egyptian people to be punished for Pharaoh's stubborn decisions? They didn't elect Pharaoh. They had no control over Pharaoh's decisions. The story even tells us that Pharaoh's servants implored him to let the Hebrews go, saying "knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?" What kind of God would punish these innocent people who were urging Pharaoh to do the right thing? Why would God make them suffer? Why would God kill their firstborn children? It's beyond me how anyone could argue that God is behaving morally in this story.mereologist_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

jerry: I just found some more examples: bornagain77 wrote: "...he does act like a pompous know it all on this site..." "Thus, unlike Darwinists, I actually spoke a truth! "Hoki_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

Hoki: And in what context did I call Levy an arrogant jerk? I thought it extremely proper to call him as such since he does act like a pompous know it all on this site, and yet when he is refuted he never admits the refutation of his convoluted facts. Thus, unlike Darwinists, I actually spoke a truth! And another thing that separates me from most darwinists, is I would be extremely happy to call him an arrogant jerk to his face! As well hoki, "arrogant jerk" is extremely small potatoes to the abuse I have suffered, over the years, at the hands of darwinists over at PT and PZ's blog. For the vast majority of times I let the abuse of civility slide and "turn the other cheek", but as one preacher once said I only got two cheeks! You may say as a Christian I should let people walk all over me, and maybe if I were perfect I would allow that, but I am far from such perfection and in fact am very much "saved by grace not by works". Though I do not use that truth as an excuse to avoid trying to better myself.bornagain77_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

MK:"There is no logical necessity for events to have a cause" Let me be clear. You are saying that it is not illogical to say that something comes into being from nothing? MK:"A happy independence day to you too (although coming from the UK so my reasons for celebrating a bit different" My bad. I thought somewhere that I read that you were a Professor at Cornell and from that I assumed you were American. Vividvividbleau_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

dbthomas: "According to current theory, virtual particles don’t have a cause in any meaningful sense." What part of the current theory proposes that virtual particles come from nothing? Last I checked they were a way to describe static fields. Where is the evidence that these fields are literally caused by nothing? They have a mathematical structure, do they not? The current theory of the quantum world is neither well understood nor complete and there are many different interpretations available. "According to current theory, the cause of virtual particles is not understood" would probably be a more accurate statement. dbthomas: "I suppose you could say quantum uncertainty itself “causes” them, but that’s not particularly helpful." ... and how does this relate to your assertion that "nothing" causes them -- that something comes from nothing?CJYman_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Re #120 If you would could you explain how it is logically possible for something to have no cause? "Logically possible" means "can be true without breaking any of the laws of logic". There is no law of logic that says every event has a cause. The universe is full of the unimaginable. Go back 200 years. Even the cleverest would have assumed it was somehow necessary that: The angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees If you observe two objects coming from exactly opposite directions one at speed x and the other at speed y then the speed of one relative to the other is x+y That everything has a position at a given moment Of course, since then all of these have been found to be false in some extraordinary contexts. We have already found events that apparently have no cause. There is no logical necessity for events to have a cause. You are just assuming it because you rarely meet events without causes in your life. It is not magic - remember I am only saying it is possible - I wait for firm evidence to see if it is true. A happy independence day to you too (although coming from the UK so my reasons for celebrating a bit different).Mark Frank_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

"My point is that something causes them even if the cuases are mysterious to us" I should have written My point is that something causes them even if the causes are mysterious to us. To assert the contrary is to embrace the idea that nothing causes them, that something comes from nothing. Vividvividbleau_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

db: "I suppose you could say quantum uncertainty itself “causes” them, but that’s not particularly helpful. As well say “reality” causes them." My point is that something causes them even if the cuases are mysterious to us. It soundsl like you are saying the same thing. Vividvividbleau_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

Vivid:
Things just poof into existence. Looks like invoking magic to me.
There no invocation at all. That's the point. They are simply a consequence of quantum field theory, which must take the uncertainty principle into account, and their effects can be and are observed. The fundamental forces are in fact described as the exchange of virtual particles. I suppose you could say quantum uncertainty itself "causes" them, but that's not particularly helpful. As well say "reality" causes them.dbthomas_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

CJYMan: According to current theory, virtual particles don't have a cause in any meaningful sense. You may of course feel free to believe they do, but so far, it has resisted discovery and there is no evidence that it exists.dbthomas_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

Sorry for that broken final link. Here it is in working orderdbthomas_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

Hoki @ 124: You may find this Google search interesting: oil of ad hominem site:https://uncommondescent.com/ Searching this site for the words "Darwinist", "atheist", and "materialist" will certainly yield many more examples of negative mockery on the part of the positive and polite design proponents implied by Jerry's categorization of anti-ID folk. I also heartily recommend looking through ex-blogczar DaveScot's past contributions to the discussions here. Here's another relevant blast-from-the-UD-past: Flatulence removed from “The Judge Jones School of Law” I'd also recommend searching through Galapagos Finch's output. He used to have an entire website devoted largely to negative mockery anti-ID folk, but alas, 'tis no more.dbthomas_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

dbthomas: "That’s all well and good, but recalling pop lyrics doesn’t do much to address the actual point you’ve raised. Please tell me what the cause of a Virtual particle is." I'm not following your logic here. Are you attempting to state that if we don't know the cause of something, therefore it doesn't have a cause? When has that line of logic ever proved fruitful? Other than a thing always existing, if something comes from nothing that sounds pretty close to "magic" since in that case there is no future possibility of an explanation since "nothing caused it." Nakashima: "Closed timelike curves?" But then you couldn't say that the thing came into existence without a cause, because in that case it never would have "come into existence" -- it would have always existed. Unless the "closed timelike curve" itself had a cause.CJYman_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

"That’s all well and good, but recalling pop lyrics doesn’t do much to address the actual point you’ve raised. Please tell me what the cause of a Virtual particle is." I dont know. However because I do not know does not invalidate my point which is that to say nothing caused a virtual particle is to say that something can come from nothing. Things just poof into existence. Looks like invoking magic to me. Vividvividbleau_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

Mr vividbleau, To say that something can come into existence without a cause is to say that nothing caused it, that something can come from nothing. Every time I read something like this I start hearing the song in my head “Do you believe in magic” Closed timelike curves?Nakashima_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

Vivid @ 121:
To say that something can come into existence without a cause is to say that nothing caused it, that something can come from nothing. Every time I read something like this I start hearing the song in my head “Do you believe in magic”
That's all well and good, but recalling pop lyrics doesn't do much to address the actual point you've raised. Please tell me what the cause of a Virtual particle is. By doing so, you will also address Mereologist's example of radioactive decay, which is thought to result from vacuum fluctuations...aka virtual particles.dbthomas_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

jerry:
They are generally unpleasant, mocking and negative.
When I prompted you to provide evidence of this, you asked for me to do it myself. I did a quick check and found this: bornagain77 wrote: And to be brutally honest with you, I find you an arrogant jerk. Joseph wrote:: You chimps have proven that the theory van’t even muster a testable hypothesis with the proposed mechanisms. jerry wrote: Well Darwinian processes are based on Mickey Mouse... I can't remember where, but Joseph also said something about evolutionist morons. Of course, these are the comments that I remembered. My memory could, of course, be selective. Perhaps yours is as well?Hoki_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Alan, Jerry's observation runs across the board regardless of whether or not said critics posted here.Joseph_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

Jerry asks upthread:
I have often remarked tha[t] the most interesting thing about this debate is the behavior of the anti ID people. There is no politeness or good feelings manifest in any of them. They seem to be driven by negative feelings against something with an objective of putting people down or finding a gotcha somewhere. As one commenter said a day or so ago, all they are interested in is poisoning the well. Why do they continue to come here when they show such obvious disdain? That is the interesting question.
(Sorry for the late response. I have been away for a week visiting aged parent without internet access! Must say it hasn't taken long to get up-to-speed) Jerry, please note, that only a very small subset of critics even visit this site, so you get an unrepresentative sample!Alan Fox_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Mark, I meant to include the following in my revious post. To say that something can come into existence without a cause is to say that nothing caused it, that something can come from nothing. Every time I read something like this I start hearing the song in my head "Do you believe in magic" Vividvividbleau_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Mark:" As far as we know the specific emission of that alpha particle at that time has no totally sufficient cause. So in this sense there are events which apparently have no cause. And if it can appear they have no cause then it is logically possible for them to have no cause." Hi Mark, To appear to have no cause and to actually have no cause are two different things. If you would could you explain how it is logically possible for something to have no cause? Thanks and let me take this time to wish you as well as all the posters here a happy independence day. Vividvividbleau_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

William J. Murray @ 115
How do you arrive at the conclusion that morals have no objective existence? If not, where do they come from?
This turns on how you interpret "objective". I argue that morals, like ghosts or colors, have no existence beyond the confines of the human mind. In that sense, they have no objective existence. If you want to argue that other minds exist as properties of other human beings which have an objective existence then I have no problem. It is a defensible position. As for their origins, I thought I had explained my view. We are social animals living together in groups of varying size. Developing rules of behavior which preserve the interests of the constituent members aids social cohesion. Whatever the religious or spiritual or philosophical justification, that is their observed function.Seversky_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

William J. Murray,
We aren’t talking about living a “lie”; we’re talking about choosing beliefs from a relativist perspective. For a relativist, nothing is “absolute” (if you prefer that term), so what one is doing is making rational decisions about what to believe based on non-absolute knowledge.
Then call it living inauthentically, something I try not to do.
Unless you know there is no afterlife (which you do not), then believing in it is not “living a lie”. I posit that your choice of words there betrays - once again - a non-relativist framework, as did your comment about “facing reality”; you keep using phrases and terms that denote absolute or objective positions and do not seem to be generated from a relativist framework.
I'm going to bypass the critique of relativism, as I've found the discussion here more productive of heat than light. As an aside, I wish you'd familiarize yourself with some of the literature of relativism rather than just with the caricatures of it. I don't know there's no afterlife. I used to believe in an afterlife. (To be fair, I believe in the finite afterlife of memory, of human social and cultural accomplishment and contribution. And so Russell's statement "I believe that when I die I shall rot and nothing of my ego shall survive" needs revision: ego does survive, for a time, passed on in words and deeds and the memory of the living.) On balance, I find the evidence for an afterlife of the sort you're suggesting to be overwhelmed by the evidence for death as an actual end of life. For me to choose to believe in something that I find highly unlikely "for the sake," as you put it, "of enjoying life more" seems so inauthentic as to be impossible for me without a heavy dose of self-deception. I'm a little perplexed that you seem to be encouraging such self-deception.David Kellogg_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Mereologist: “Perhaps it would be best not to criticize others for ignoring context when you yourself are known to ignore parts of the Bible you find inconvenient.” I ignored nothing. I provided an explanation which you rejected. Again, I will state this: you completely missed the point of the entire gospel of John and you complain about me? “You are conveniently ignoring the fact that over and over during the plagues, God “hardened Pharaoh’s heart” so that he would refuse to let the Hebrews go.” You conviently ignore the fact that Pharaoh agreed to let the Israelites go at one point but then changed his mind. The Lord God brought nine plagues upon Pharaoh and Egypt, in which he manifested his supremacy, power and majesty. In each plague Pharaoh begged release, assuring Moses and Aaron that he would do as the Lord God directed, only to defiantly change his mind and attitude as soon as the plague was relaxed. Then God brought the tenth plague upon Pharaoh and the Egyptians, executing the firstborn in all Egypt, from the firstborn of the king on down to the firstborn of the most menial slave in his domain, and even down to the firstborn of the cattle. “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. He is the one responsible for the deaths.” This is where your so-called reasoning completely goes awry. Let’s put the blame on who is really responsible, Mereologist. The Pharaoh of the time of Moses chose to stubbornly oppose God, and so God sent ten plagues, and finally had to wipe out Pharaoh and his hosts in the Red sea. All such were great evils, calamities, which entailed great suffering upon the Egyptians. But they were not wrongs. Pharaoh was the wrongdoer, and God was perfectly within his rights in thus punishing him and thereby settling the issue as to who is supreme. Indeed, it was only because God kept hardening Pharaoh’s heart that there ended up being ten plagues. Can you imagine any sane ruler who wouldn’t have let the Hebrews go after, say, the third or fourth plague at most? But no, God wanted to make a point and it didn’t matter that innocent people had to suffer for it.” The earlier plagues jarred Pharaoh loose from his hypocritical complacency. He then let the Israelites go, in fact, he rushed them out. But then Pharaoh stirred up within himself retaliatory vengeance and selfishness and determined to bring them back and to hold them for his expansion program. His avariciousness overcame his fear and he gave chase to bring them back. Unrepentant and hardhearted, Pharaoh and his Egyptian army were destroyed in the sea. If the Egyptians under Pharaoh had simply let the Hebrews go after the third or fourth plague and hadn’t tried to recapture them, they wouldn’t have had to deal with the rest of the plagues because there wouldn’t have been any! The fact that you refuse to examine the context of the scriptures you continually quote is certainly not my fault. It’s yours.Barb_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply