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

David, "the Heaven provided by him will be tailored to our yearnings." Well even that is not quite right, because I'm not even certain we will have yearnings anymore - perhaps it's more like: we will have infinite sustained, wonderous satisfaction.CannuckianYankee_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

David, No, I was never a talking heads fan. Have you heard of the song Highlands by Bob Dylan? __________________________ Well my heart's in the Highlands gentle and fair Honeysuckle blooming in the wildwood air Bluebelles blazing, where the Aberdeen waters flow Well my heart's in the Highland, I'm gonna go there when I feel good enough to go.... Well my heart's in the Highlands wherever I roam That's where I'll be when I get called home The wind, it whispers to the buckeyed trees in rhyme Well my heart's in the Highland, I can only get there one step at a time. ______________________________ The song's over 16 minutes long, and is on Dylan's 1997 album Time Out Of Mind. The longest song Dylan ever recorded. It's pure blues bliss. Well, the point is - heaven is imagined very differently from one person to the next. Dylan's idea of heaven sounds nice - in fact, more preferabel than the Talking Heads' vision; but my point is that all of our imaginings of it are inadequate - because those imaginings come from our current state of temporality. We don't really know what an eternity is like. This is why I think the scriptures say very little about heaven. It's pretty much pointless except with a few promises that give us only a glimpse of what it will be like. If we will be new creatures in heaven, then all of our current synaptic processes will be expanded to a new reference point - a change over from temporality to eternity. I don't envision it as a bar party that will end and then repeat itself infinitely, but as an endless celebration of the purity, lovingkindness, goodness and joy of being in the presence of ultimate reality. We simply cannot imagine it adequately enough. Think about it this way - I love classical music, and I listen to all the greats - Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Schubert, Brahms, etc... I could listen to this music for months and months without tiring of it, as long as I had a very large variety of selections. However, the wondrous nature of our music sadly is only temporary. If I had to listen to only one Beethoven Symphony over and over again for weeks on end, it would be like a torture. If all I had to listen to for the rest of my current life was the catalogue of 300 or so CD's I possess, then that too would eventually seem mundane and torturous. However, Heaven is infinite, and this implies an infinite variety of experiences, profound and changing. When we experience epiphanies of reality in our current life we are struck with what I believe is a sense of the eternal. Heaven will be one long epiphany, of which we will never tire. This is one reason (among others) I believe in a personal God - because an impersonal deity could not adequately provide for our personal need for eternal transformation - because such a God does not know us. The Theistic personal God of Christianity knows us intimately - and combined with His infinite wisdom and knowledge, the Heaven provided by him will be tailored to our yearnings. But even that picture is inadequate to the reality.CannuckianYankee_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

Bantay @ 56: You may not recognize that I was reasoning in parallel to the original statement made by Dave Scott, in which he took the percentage of believers in the NAS as a tentative percentage probability that God exists. I realize that his argument is deeply flawed. That's the joke.Tajimas D_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

Vivid, The claim was "a thing exists." I don't reject that claim. I reject that claim as objective truth. I don't know what it would mean for it to be objective truth and I don't know why it would matter if it were objective truth. Maybe it's just me. Does it seem nontrivial to you?David Kellogg_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

DK: "Yes. I can’t see how that claim makes a case for itself as an objective truth." I did not ask whether you could see how the claim makes a case for itself as an objective truth. My comment was directed at your reason for rejecting the claim. The reason you gave was invalid since it did not address the claim. Rather than address the substance of my post you go and make an argument from authority ( yours) without any justification. Vividvividbleau_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

Lenoxus, BTW - I don't think "after-life" is an adequate depiction of that reality. I think it's the beginning of life as it was meant to be lived. We are smitten with despair in this life because we reject the Creator. Those whom I have known who have embraced the Creator have increased their life's satisfaction, but that too cannot compare with what is to come. why? Because not only will the world and the universe change, but we will change as well - from corruptible to incorruptible in every sense of the phrase. If this seems like far too much of a religious ideal, well, consider the fact that the world is, and that we are in it. Most of us are not satisfied with what is. Otherwise we would all get along in peace and harmony. The reality is we don't. If God is a reality, what is now prepares us for what is to come - for in eternity we will have a reference point for that glory. Every lesson we learn in this life - every mistake - every tragedy - every mundane moment will have its opposite: the true ying and yang. And the purpose behind it all is not towards our own glorification, but towards the glorification of the Creator - the sustainer of all that is pure, true and good. The scriptures only give us a hint of that reality - "the lion will lie down with the lamb," "every tear will be wiped away." "a new heaven and new earth," etc... These are but a taste of the hope we have in that promised paradise.CannuckianYankee_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee, have you ever heard the Talking Heads song "Heaven"? Here are the lyrics:
Everyone is trying To get to the bar. The name of the bar, The bar is called heaven. The band in heaven They play my favorite song. Play it one more time Play it all night long. Heaven Heaven is a place A place where nothing Nothing ever happens. (x2) There is a party, Everyone is there. Everyone will leave At exactly the same time. When this party's over It will start again. Will not be any different Will be exactly the same. Heaven Heaven is a place A place where nothing Nothing ever happens. (x2) When this kiss is over It will start again. Will not be any different, Will be exactly the same. Its hard to imagine That nothing at all Could be so exciting, Could be this much fun. Heaven Heaven is a place A place where nothing Nothing ever happens. (x2)
David Kellogg_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

Lenoxus, "Because in a never-ending existence, all my actions would become increasingly meaningless on an exponential scale." I can see that existing forever in this world would become increasingly meaningless on an exponential scale. However, that is not what is promised by scripture. On all accounts, the after life is infinitely rich, with new discoveries and adventure. Boredom will be a thing of the past in the presence of our infinite eternal creator. We don't currently have any reference to compare. The reason why this life at times is rife with the mundane is because of the current condition of this world and this universe. A Creator who has the power, reason and insight to create all that exists, can infinitely create and sustain an existence that is expressed in exponentially increasing magnitude of excitement and pleasure. There's no limit. In the scriptures we are offered: "enter into your rest." This seems to indicate that what we worry about and toil over in this life "cannot compare with the glory that is to be." We haven't experienced eternity, so all our imaginings are inadequate to the reality.CannuckianYankee_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

lamarck, you may "know one objective truth exists." I don't. In my view your "adds clarity to life" response is interesting but not helpful. First, the only value you find such "objective" truth adds is subjective ("for me"). Second, it "adds clarity" but it "hard to explain." Third, to be honest, the whole comment read vaguely like something written while stoned. You haven't shown in the slightest that objective truth exists. You've shown that you believe it exists, and that that belief is helpful for you, but not much else. Sorry. I don't want to dismiss what you are trying to say. It just doesn't process as a defense of, or even an articulation of, objective truth (to my relativist brain).David Kellogg_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

David, I answered your question. What do you mean you don't know what is to be gained? We know one objective truth exists. Do you see how I gained from this?lamarck_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

"I’m not saying that you are wrong here, but do you have any evidence of this? " I suggest you follow backwards those who oppose ID and watch their behavior. It is not hard to find. I have been here four years and in the last 8 months there has been a large increase of people here who are anti ID and who are consistently rude. Actually a couple of them have been fine but not many. Dave Wisker and Art Hunt have been courteous but on other sites some who are polite here mock us when not here. "Or is this just an example of a subtly religious assertion" I rarely bring up religion and prefer not to discuss it because it is pointless relevant to ID but will discuss it sometimes to clarify something. It is brought up all the time by anti ID people. I watched a video some time ago by Philip Johnson and immediately some of the questioners afterward tried to steer the debate to religion. Johnson was criticizing Darwinian processes and the questioners wanted to discuss religion. It happens here all the time. Just the other day the term creationist was thrown about without any definition of what it meant. The reason was to discredit someone who supported ID. "Was I being unpleasant, mocking and negative now?" No, but you were in comment #1. Think of the various ways you could have rephrased that comment.jerry_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

William J. Murray:
What difference does it make if there is any evidence for it or not?
Huh? I take a small satisfaction in facing reality.David Kellogg_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

Jerry:
Then there is a second type of challenger who does not budge an inch over time. They are easy to identify because of their attitudes and arguments. When rebuffed on one thing they move on to another but concede nothing. Currently, the site is loaded with these types and they are easy to identify. They all seem to have the same modus operandi. They are generally unpleasant, mocking and negative.
I'm not saying that you are wrong here, but do you have any evidence of this? Or is this just an example of a subtly religious assertion (to use Cornelius Hunter's words)? Proportionally, how do these people compare to the ID supporters? Was I being unpleasant, mocking and negative now?Hoki_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

If existence is preferable to non-existence, why believe that one will cease to exist after death? Because in a never-ending existence, all my actions would become increasingly meaningless on an exponential scale. Some say "Why bother doing things well and working for the common good if you're going to die?" I say, why bother if I'm immortal? Especially, why bother if the people I love are immortal too? I feel this would be the case regardless of what form our immortality would take. Like I said before, of course there's a part of me that would love to live forever in a place I personally would love to live forever, by definition. And if I died at 100, and met someone I could negotiate with for more time alive, I would lick their boots for it. I'm only human. But I think that's the same part of me that would love to eat nothing but chocolate all day without getting sick. I don't think that's the real, grown-up me. All that said, I suppose that, if pressed, I could design an eternal afterlife I would be comfortable with, one with increasing challenges and the ability to help others (which in principle couldn't happen in a truly perfect world). But I've never seen such an afterlife proposed, and I certainly wouldn't automatically start believing in it just because I like the idea. I also love the idea of a Martian civilization, but I don't think we're about to discover one. I'd also like to apologize to you and any other afterlife-believers if I seem to be patronizing. I totally respect you and your beliefs, I'm just throwing in my tuppence.Lenoxus_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

David, What difference does it make if there is any evidence for it or not?William J. Murray_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

Omnibus response here. William J. Murray to Lenoxus:
If existnce is preferable to non-existence, why believe that one will cease to exist after death?
Because there's no reliable evidence to the contrary? Vividbleau:
The writer is is making a claim about things not no things.
Yes. I can't see how that claim makes a case for itself as an objective truth. Lamarck:
“What is gained by claiming objective truth?” For me this adds clarity to life. One day I realized that there is actually something somewhere, it was a therapeutic moment. Because something actually is, gives life a sacred quality. So whether we are in a dream or are just a vehicle from some god or whatever, we’re experiencing something, It’s hard to explain.
I'm not sure what to make of this, because I don't know what this has to do with objectivity. William J. Murray to me:
Language and reason are used to aspire to objective understanding and judgements; if our position is that truth is relative, why bother with the debate? Why bother using reason? Aren’t the axioms of reason - the necessary foundational stones of logic - also relative? One who argues that truth is relative is destroying their own argument; what have you proven? Nothing, except some relative notion that might be suitable for you, but for which I have no obligation to even consider.
I disagree with the first sentence, which I'd rewrite as follows: "Language and reason are used to aspire to collective understanding and judgments; if truth is not relative, why is debate even necessary?" As for the charge of self-refutation (that people like me are "destroying their own argument"), I said I wouldn't waste time on that, and I won't. Those who are interested can search previous debates on this site where I've laid out my views in some detail. I'd also recommend "Unloading the Self-Refutation Charge" in Barbara Herrnstein Smith, Belief and Resistance: Dynamics of Contemporary Intellectual Controversy (Harvard University Press, 1997). Needless to say, the debate on self-refutation takes a while to play out and is unlikely to move people on either side. I think, though, that it might be possible for a non-relativist at least to see why, when the abandonment of objectivity is put in relativist terms, the various charges (of self-refutation, quietism, subjectivism, etc.) fail to be compelling to the relativist.David Kellogg_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Lenoxus, It is by avoiding the answering of compelling, simple questions that one can continue to engage in self-deceit. If existnce is preferable to non-existence, why believe that one will cease to exist after death? Please note, I have not inserted ANY limitations, descriptions or conditions on what form any such "afterlife" might take.William J. Murray_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

William Murray @66 "If objective truth does not exist, why argue anything, other than to jut get others to agree with you?" I think it's because a relative truth is the minimum sufficient truth for atheism to be believable. It is just true enough to allow a minimally acceptable level of irrationality (atheist faith?), and the maximum level of personal, instant gratification (sexual permissiveness?). Relative truth is philosophicaly therapuetic since it doesn't make any difficult personal or moral demands. I think a philosophically therapuetic state of mind is more important to the atheist than considering the possibility of absolute truth. As such, any relative truth, no matter how ridiculous, is worth defending to the atheist, not for the sake of the truth being relative, but merely to avoid the truth being absolute.Bantay_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

William J. Murray:
Lenoxus, I don’t really understand your position here. Are you saying that “nonexistence” is preferable to existence? I can imagine all sorts of existence scenarios that would both be enjoyable and motivating, and not enjoyable and not motivating. We can choose to believe in one that is enjoyable and motivating, yes? Isn’t that preferable to “nonexistence”?
Well, of course I would prefer to never die and instead live forever in paradise, but that's just selfish me. Looking at the big picture, there's something depressing about the idea that the whole "Let's save children from leukemia" thing that has been the basis of so much morality and heroism has in fact been completely wrongheaded, because death for children is actually the best thing that could ever happen to them. Not to mention the question of whether those in heaven still perceive any suffering that happens here on Earth, but are unable to do anything about it. I would not want to be so drugged on heaven-pleasure that I would cease to feel bad about the suffering of others. On top of all that, the concept of heaven is often coupled to one of Hell, which has plenty of problems that I'm sure you've heard before. Echidna-Levy:
And anyway it cannot be “an objective truth” as somewhere in the universe there might be a race of aliens that have to rape and murder their children in order to be able to reproduce.
OK, coming from the other side of the "objective truths" question (but not the God question) I must disagree. As soon as members of such a race can recognize the wrongness of their way of life, they must work to change it. If one is born into a slavery-dependent economy, and one is sufficiently knowledgeable about the lives of slaves, one has an obligation to not take part in that particular evil. Thanks to evolution, parents often treat their own children as more important than others' — a behavior so mild I certainly wouldn't call it 'evil', but not the highest 'good' either. Maybe just 'practical'? Anyway, I'm saying that wicked stepmothers in fairy tales don't have the evolutionary excuse, even though they have an evolutionary cause. I'm probably not making sense; oh well. Earlier, you said "your 'designer' apparently does not think all sorts of things are sick". To clarify, I'm an atheist too. I agree those things are sick, and the creator's best excuse is nonexistence. You also said:
Tell me, if it had of been the Wasps that would be in humanities place do you think that you’d be arguing that sticking your stinger in a grubs brain and controling it was immoral? If that was what you had to do to reproduce?
I might be (as you see what I said earlier). It depends on whether I was intellectually/emotionally capable of seeing that parasitism as wrong. Just as God's excuse for making the wasp is nonexistence, the wasp's excuse is not knowing any better. While I might attribute the tiniest smidgen of consciousness to a wasp, I doubt it's capable of empathy, and I believe it is purely instinct-driven when it comes to moral actions. There's no sense in which a wasp recognizes a caterpillar as a "being".
Yep, the idea of an objective morality from a “designer” who also makes those kinds of designs is funny.
Indeed. While many seem to argue that objective morality can only come from God, I argue that not only can it not come from God, it can't "come from" anything but the existence of thinking, feeling beings. And once you have those, nothing in the world can remove morality from the picture. Some general thoughts/questions as I see the conversation progress: How does reality + God = objectivity? Why isn't God just another important being among important beings? If it's because He's the Creator, what difference does that make? If God were to give clear, distinct messages to a group of people, how should they know to trust him, and that it wasn't Satan talking to them? How does God's being the Creator give Him special privileges? (I'm a very democratically-minded person.) What does God add to the reality/meaning conversation, assuming that people could physically exist without Him?Lenoxus_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

"If objective truth does not exist, why argue anything, other than to jut get others to agree with you?" That would mean that NDE is not objectively true.Why should anyone accept a theory that is not true? Vividvividbleau_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

The assumption of a standard of objective truths gives meaning to debates and arguments of reason and logic, because we assume that we can approach an objective understanding at some point that makes clear our subjective errors of interpretation. Unless one presupposed an objective truth, then all argument and debate is nothing more than the attempt to get others to think as you do - not becauuse your thinking better reflects the truth, but just because you wish more people to think like you. How can one deny objective truth, and then be confidant in the belief that "no gods exist"? How can one deny objective truth exists, then consider it foolish with prejudice, to the point of ridicule, that others do not believe that "chance and natural law" generated the DNA code? If objective truth does not exist, why argue anything, other than to jut get others to agree with you?William J. Murray_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

DK:“a thing exists” is definitely not an objective truth, since there are plenty of places in the universe where it seems nothing exists" What is nothing? Nothing is no thing.No thing is not a thing so your statement does not negate " a thing is" The writer is is making a claim about things not no things. Vividvividbleau_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg You wrote that Pascal's wager is an argument for making the safest choice. You are right. I should also like to add: and the most satisfying choice - that is, one which fulfils the longings of the human heart. Only an unlimited, universal God could do that, as I argue in my linked article in #47.vjtorley_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

"What is gained by claiming objective truth?" For me this adds clarity to life. One day I realized that there is actually something somewhere, it was a therapeutic moment. Because something actually is, gives life a sacred quality. So whether we are in a dream or are just a vehicle from some god or whatever, we're experiencing something, It's hard to explain.lamarck_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg, Language and reason are used to aspire to objective understanding and judgements; if our position is that truth is relative, why bother with the debate? Why bother using reason? Aren't the axioms of reason - the necessary foundational stones of logic - also relative? One who argues that truth is relative is destroying their own argument; what have you proven? Nothing, except some relative notion that might be suitable for you, but for which I have no obligation to even consider.William J. Murray_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

Echidna-Levy You wrote:
And anyway it cannot be “an objective truth” [that raping and murdering children is wrong - V.J.T.] as somewhere in the universe there might be a race of aliens that have to rape and murder their children in order to be able to reproduce.
One solid prediction of theism is that there would be no such race. For if there were, then these aliens would have to treat other persons (their own progeny) as mere means to their own selfish end (survival). This is utterly incompatible with ethical behavior, anywhere in the cosmos. (There's another "objective truth" for you - the Kantian imperative.) I should add that it would be utterly wrong for a Deity to treat children as mere means to an end, too. For even if God made us, that does not mean that God is entitled to treat any of us as being of purely instrumental value. Human persons (born and unborn) are ends in themselves, even if they are finite creatures. Thus if God were ever to deliberately take someone's life, it would have to be for their own good (i.e. in order to save them from a greater evil had they lived), and not for God's own personal pleasure. It should be self-evident that rape could never be good for anyone; thus God could never order that.vjtorley_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

Echidna, ------"Yes, it’s considered wrong to rape and murder children (unless it’s a command from a particular god) but that per se does not make it an objective truth." So, raping and murdering children is not objectively wrong to you. Thanks for clarifying.Clive Hayden_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

lamarck, clearly these are difficult terms to pin down. What is gained by claiming objective truth? I can't see any advantage.David Kellogg_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

David, this definition of objective I gave isn't a good one. This is gone over in wiki. I didn't want to go find the perfect definition but the meaning still gets across. It means a truth which is actually a truth. Space itself is a thing. I'm thinking much more all inclusive of everything though, not just physical universe examples. All places are things too.lamarck_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

Lenoxus, I don't really understand your position here. Are you saying that "nonexistence" is preferable to existence? I can imagine all sorts of existence scenarios that would both be enjoyable and motivating, and not enjoyable and not motivating. We can choose to believe in one that is enjoyable and motivating, yes? Isn't that preferable to "nonexistence"?William J. Murray_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply