Comments on: Encore: Saving Pascal

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 08:44:55 +0000

Hi, great article: a perfect explanation of the fallibility of Pascal’s Wager in relation to religion.

Just one point though, regarding this quote:

“So, for example, while the notion of a loving God who allows eternal damnation seems absurd, it is less absurd than assuming the world is run by invisible unicorns, or that God discriminates against those who believe in him.”

I wouldn’t really class this as a Charlatan’s Excuse, but more as special pleading: my idea might be absurd (*cough*not*cough), but yours is more absurd, so is less likely. Or more specifically, he’s claiming to know the mind and will of an unknowable being that may or may not exist to make assumptions about what that being may or may not want, even though he has no way of knowing any such thing. His position is special, because he says so.

Given that evidence exists for neither, and human reasoning cannot, by the admission of Christians themselves, be applied to “God”, both cases are equally (un)likely. In fact, if you’re talking absurdity, I find it more reasonable to imagine a deity who doesn’t discriminate based on belief/disbelief, goodness/badness and takes everybody to utopia …

Or, you know, one who doesn’t exist.

By: Tacroy

Tacroy — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:09:17 +0000

Pascal’s wager says that you should kill your children as soon as possible after they have been baptized and/or taught to believe in God.

1. Children are free of sin, and believe in Jesus. (by baptism if you believe in that, and because they’ll believe anything)
2. If you let your children live, they may choose to sin and/or stop believing in Jesus. They may also continue believing in Jesus and not sin. This means that the outcome if they live is (prob Hell * -infinity) + (prob Heaven * infinity).
3. If you kill your children right now, they will definitely go to Heaven. This means that the outcome if they die immediately is (prob Heaven * infinity).
4. (prob Heaven * infinity) > (prob Hell * -infinity) + (prob Heaven * infinty), for any nonzero values of prob Hell and prob Heaven.
5. Therefore, you should kill your children in order to achieve the best outcome for them. You will of course go to jail and Hell (in that order), but any parent would say that going to Hell to ensure that their child ends up in Heaven is a small price to pay. Further, it’s totally worth it if you have more than one child – in fact, it becomes even more worthwhile the more children you kill.

By: mikespeir

mikespeir — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 10:41:51 +0000

The reason it seems less absurd is that we’re so used to the idea of God being taken seriously. It permeates our culture. Some of us were so inculcated with the notion so early that later, even after having found it rationally wanting, it’s still a hard thing to escape.

By: Mishmuf

Mishmuf — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 04:41:20 +0000

“So, for example, while the notion of a loving God who allows eternal damnation seems absurd, it is less absurd than assuming the world is run by invisible unicorns…”

Uh, HOW? It seems to me that God behaves exactly like an invisible unicorn, just without the flowing mane and badass horn.

By: ThatOtherGuy

ThatOtherGuy — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 22:51:31 +0000

Wow. Just… wow. I am phenomenally disappointed in Scott Adams. I was really hoping you weren’t talking about THAT Scott Adams, but… damn, just damn. I had him pegged as intelligent, and his post is one of the stupidest things I have ever read.

I’m going to go be sad now. Another one bites the dust.