A Question For David S.
 

David,

I would like to hear your response/thoughts on the following hypothetical proposition:

I walk into your office with a winning Powerball ticket worth $300 Million (or insert more desirable prize if you prefer), a brand new deck of fair cards, and a random shuffling machine. I propose that we randomly shuffle and then select one card. If the card is the A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], you will be summarily executed immediately. If any other card comes off, you get the winning ticket free & clear, no strings attached. Would you accept this proposition? If not, what odds against your losing would you need to accept the proposition?

Re: A Question For David S.
 

For me it would have to be about 10,000 to one. But I'm rich.

Re: A Question For David S.
 

[ QUOTE ]
But I'm rich.

[/ QUOTE ]

The day that I can end any statement I make with this phrase, I will sit back, light up a cuban and smile.

GG Sklansky. Now stop making more, and leave the tables to the needy [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: A Question For David S.
 

[ QUOTE ]
For me it would have to be about 10,000 to one. But I'm rich.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL...okay, fair enough, but that is why I gave you the option of inserting a more desirable prize (King David the 1st (well second I guess) perhaps?, first 7 time WSOP main event winner?). [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

I'm sure you see what the question is driving at. This is, in essence, the gamble that confirmed atheists have accepted. If the Christians are correct that there is a sentient, living God, and he is the same God described in the Bible, then the risk of an atheistic view is eternal punishment (not just ceasing to exist). Therefore, the risk of losing this proposition is just as extreme as the hypothetical one.

OTOH, the risk to the Christian is minimal. If there is no god, then the Christian has foolishly wasted his life trying to be a good person, help others, and being ridiculed for his foolish belief, when he could've been out screwing people over for his own gain and generally just having more fun. However, when he dies, if he simply ceases to exist (which seems to be the belief of most atheists, but I certainly don't claim to speak for any of them in particular) then it won't be of very much consequence to him.

Therefore, it seems to me that it behooves every good poker playing atheist to assess the odds that he/she could "lose the bet", so to speak. Obviously, to do this will require an objective look at all of the evidence available, so that each can come up with odds that they believe are close to correct. After that, they just have to answer the question posed in the original post to see if the odds are acceptable to them. This, ultimately, is simply a personal decision of course.

Edit: I just wanted to note that I am making no assumptions about your own beliefs in the area of "confirmed atheist", David. I was just curious about what odds you thought would be acceptable for such a proposition.

Re: A Question For David S.
 

"I'm sure you see what the question is driving at. This is, in essence, the gamble that confirmed atheists have accepted."

No No No. The two biggest reasons are that other religions might say believing in the Christian God is what sends you TO hell and the even stronger refutation that you can't help what you believe and pretending will get you nowhere.

Even most theologians, I think, reject your point. Even Not Ready does.

Re: A Question For David S.
 

It cracks me up every time I hear this argument!

You are basically saying that theists would really prefer being able to pillage, rape, and plunder, but instead are inconvenienced into being good people and helping others as a price for God's acceptance? Do you think God does not know your true desires?

Also, do you really think God will be pleased that you took Him on a freeroll? "Hey, I had nothing to lose! It was a freeroll into heaven if I said I believed in you!".

You don't control your beliefs and God must know what your true beliefs are.

Re: A Question For David S.
 

[ QUOTE ]
No No No. The two biggest reasons are that other religions might say believing in the Christian God is what sends you TO hell

[/ QUOTE ]

That there are other beliefs in no way repudiates the general point. Atheists should be encouraged to examine all of those beliefs and make the "play" that seems most +EV to them. I do realize that this is a very loose analogy.

[ QUOTE ]
and the even stronger refutation that you can't help what you believe and pretending will get you nowhere.


[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I will concede this point. My example was only meant to be illustrative of a concept and was probably not the greatest choice (and besides, it's late and I'm sick!). The real point, is the objective evaluation of the available evidence, since this is potentially a very high-stakes wager. After a meaningful review of the evidence, each will have almost certainly come to a decision to pursue one belief system over the others, even if they still aren't fully convinced one way or the other. Having doubts, questioning God's existence or purposes, and not blindly believing in something just because you were taught it as a child (for reference I was never inside a church except for weddings prior to adulthood) is not a sin as I understand it. Blindly denying without seeking with an open mind, or rejecting evidence because one does not wish to believe is another matter. To the extent, therefore, of intellectually honest examination, you can help what you believe.

[ QUOTE ]
Even Not Ready does.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't spent much time in this forum before, so I am not familiar with Not Ready's views on this matter. Certainly, Christians disagree on many minutia of doctrine, it is only the major points that join them all together as Christians.

I've really got to go try to get back to sleep now because I may be dying here. If I kick off, I'll try to get conclusive word to you from the other side (assuming I don't just blink out of existence). [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: A Question For David S.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Atheists should be encouraged to examine all of those beliefs and make the "play" that seems most +EV to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you done that? And you think Christianity is the most +EV play? Please explain. I would like to see which religions you have studied, in regards to eternal reward vs. eternal risk/punishment, and how you valued them to calculate EV. If you have not done that, then you are being hypocritical. Do you see why? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: A Question For David S.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Have you done that? And you think Christianity is the most +EV play? Please explain. I would like to see which religions you have studied, in regards to eternal reward vs. eternal risk/punishment, and how you valued them to calculate EV.

[/ QUOTE ]
Me too

Re: A Question For David S.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Have you done that? And you think Christianity is the most +EV play? Please explain. I would like to see which religions you have studied, in regards to eternal reward vs. eternal risk/punishment, and how you valued them to calculate EV.

[/ QUOTE ]Me too

[/ QUOTE ]
Thirded the motion has passed.

Re: A Question For David S.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Atheists should be encouraged to examine all of those beliefs and make the "play" that seems most +EV to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would make the argument that Christianity isn't the most +EV. There are other religions where their concept of heaven is just as lovely but have no eternal damnation with much weeping and gnashing of teeth and 7 legged moblins that I have to get to level 34 and use Magic Spear Attack to defeat. But I can't find the goddamn mystical clover.

Out of the Big Three I'd say Islam is the most +EV. Same heaven, but with all the cherry-poppin madness you can imagine.

Re: A Question For David S.
 

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and the even stronger refutation that you can't help what you believe and pretending will get you nowhere.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Okay, I will concede this point.

[/ QUOTE ]
Conceded too easy. I'm reluctant to cross swords with DS so soon, he may turn me into a blueberry muffin but this is a very weak refutation.

Christianity is clear that it doesn't matter how you come by your belief as long as you get there. It is plausible that becoming a practising christian will lead to those beliefs especially if christianity is true.

It doesn't need to be very plausible. If the chances of Christianity being true are a gazillion to 1 and the chances of practising leading to believing are a googoloid to 1 then this refutation fails as the upside is infinite.

The argument that you cannot choose your beliefs is true but misguided. If someone doesn't believe modern physics then they cannot choose to believe it but they can choose to study physics which makes believing modern physics more likely than if they don't bother. Studying physics which includes practising physics (doing experiments and calculations) is a reasonable analogy to practising christianity, certainly close enough to support a tiny plausibility that practising makes belief more likely.

To make the refutation work DS needs to argue that practising christianity makes belief no more likely or less likely (even if christianity is true).

The problem is the other refutation. If christianity is wrong then a different god may infinitely punish you for pretending to believe and really torment you for eternity if you get fooled and end up believing. The most ev option is to do what you believe to be right, the cost is minimal and no half decent god will hold it against you.

chez

Re: A Question For David S.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Atheists should be encouraged to examine all of those beliefs and make the "play" that seems most +EV to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was simply an illustrative remark couched in terms familiar to us as poker players. I have not ever attempted to precisely quantify weightings of the probabilities of various religions being correct in order to do EV calculations for specific numbers on a "Christianity play" vs an "atheist play" or a "buddhist play", nor would I expect anyone to, although it would undoubtedly be an interesting exercise. Ultimately though, any such numbers would be subjective and none could ever agree on the actual numbers even if someone were to actually undertake this endeavor. But I think you already surmised this, and the point is simply the undertaking of examining the various beliefs without a predisposition regarding the ultimate conclusion (this is probably the most difficult part for many).

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to see which religions you have studied, in regards to eternal reward vs. eternal risk/punishment

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, in no particular order, besides Christianity, I have spent various amounts of time studying the beliefs of all of the following:

Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism (at least 2 of the numerous distinct flavors), Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, Seventh Day Adventist, Scientology, Christian Science, wicca, satanism (albeit very briefly on this one), and the teachings of the "Reverend" Sun Myung Moon.

I've spent more time examining the beliefs of Islam than any other religion aside from Christianity. I actually examined it before Christianity. I had a classmate in college who was a devout muslim (also a very nice person, and very moderate by muslim standards) and spent hours discussing with him the various tenants of his faith. I purchased an English translation of the Quran as well as a commentary and read quite a bit of it (although not nearly all of it). For me, this was really more of an intellectual exercise and simple curiosity. At that point in my life, I was very much agnostic. I didn't know if God existed, and really didn't care, so long as He didn't interfere with my studying, partying, and chasing girls (as well as catching them on numerous occasions [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]), but I found the idea fascinating for some reason.

Others, such as Scientology and the "moonies", I didn't spend nearly as much time on, but I did gather and read what literature I could get from them, and at least attempted to approach them with an open mind (with the possible exception of the satanists, who's views I freely admit I found too repugnant to really give them serious consideration).

I would be happy to discuss my thoughts on any of these, in as much detail as I still can (it's been nearly 20 years now) with you if you desire, however, it might be a more appropriate conversation to undertake off the forum, since this isn't really a "religion" forum, despite the ongoing threads. But suffice it to say, that I could probably fill up a thread by myself on this subject.

At any rate, my OP was not meant to be preaching (as I am wholly unqualified in this regard), or condescending of anyone's views. I simply wanted to encourage the undecided to examine all of the various possibilities with an open mind, and with the seriousness of a very important decision. Those who have already decided conclusively for themselves need not bother, and believe it or not, I can respect that decision, even if I didn't reach the same one.

I have no desire to engage in any of the ongoing "Show me the miracle" debates, or attempt to "force" my beliefs on anyone.

Back to the strategy forums for me now. Best wishes.

Mack

Re: A Question For David S.
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are basically saying that theists would really prefer being able to pillage, rape, and plunder, but instead are inconvenienced into being good people and helping others as a price for God's acceptance? Do you think God does not know your true desires?

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't even remotely resemble what I'm saying. Everyone, myself included and perhaps even more than most, is subject to all of the failings common to humankind. There are others far more qualified than I to discuss the various psychological/sociological reasons why most of us suppress these desires (my neighbor has something I desire, so why shouldn't I just take it, etc). I have never made any argument that Christians are inherently superior to atheists or anyone else in this regard, or that they have a "lock" on good actions or motives. Nor, conversely, have I ever made any argument that atheists lack any of the more noble qualities of humankind.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, do you really think God will be pleased that you took Him on a freeroll? "Hey, I had nothing to lose! It was a freeroll into heaven if I said I believed in you!".

[/ QUOTE ]

It may have started as a "freeroll" for me, but it has become something much more than that. I think God will understand.

Regards,

Mack

Re: A Question For David S.
 

[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't even remotely resemble what I'm saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are YOUR words:

[ QUOTE ]
If there is no god, then the Christian has foolishly wasted his life trying to be a good person, help others, and being ridiculed for his foolish belief, when he could've been out screwing people over for his own gain and generally just having more fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you telling me this doesn't imply that the only thing stopping theists from *foolishly* wasting their lives being good, instead of screwing people over is the fear of God? It sure seems that way to me. It's a ridiculous (albeit all too common) argument.

Re: A Question For David S.
 

"To make the refutation work DS needs to argue that practising christianity makes belief no more likely or less likely (even if christianity is true)."

True. I have no problem making that argument.

"The problem is the other refutation. If christianity is wrong then a different god may infinitely punish you for pretending to believe and really torment you for eternity if you get fooled and end up believing."

Since I am not aware of any religions that say that you are more likely to go to hell if you are a Christian than if you are an atheist, I think this second refutation is less strong than the first. It requires us to postulate an un commonsensical stance by God.

Re: A Question For David S.
 

Mack, who said the correct answer had to be atheism or one of the currently existing religions? Since you are only considering those options, let me throw another religion hat into the ring for you to study. It will only take one minute to study this one.

There is a god who mysteriously created the big bang from nothing. He then let his laws of nature take over and the universe evolved as it has but never has god intervened even once since his pre-big bang inciting act. You do have a soul and will go to another dimension called heaven where you will be in ecstatic happiness forever. Just as long as you are reasonably nice and don't worship any false gods. This really pisses god off. So if you examine all the current man-made religions/gods the world has to offer you and pick one, you're doomed. If you pick none and aren't an a-hole, you're safe.

Now go ahead and choose your religion wisely.

Re: A Question For David S.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and the even stronger refutation that you can't help what you believe and pretending will get you nowhere.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Okay, I will concede this point.

[/ QUOTE ]
Conceded too easy. I'm reluctant to cross swords with DS so soon, he may turn me into a blueberry muffin but this is a very weak refutation.

Christianity is clear that it doesn't matter how you come by your belief as long as you get there. It is plausible that becoming a practising christian will lead to those beliefs especially if christianity is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said the same thing to me in another thread... and I never responded. But, I will now.

What you say may be true for the easily-persuadable. But, for firm skeptics like myself (and Sklansky), practicing Christianity will more likely lead us to commit suicide than it would be to convice us that it was true.

I don't know DS's background, but I was a Christian... for a long time. Practicing, church-going, Bible-study-leading, prayer-group-organizing, worship-music-playing, Christian.

It wasn't easy for me to give that up. It will take a miracle or a vast amount of evidence for me to be able to truly believe again.

And, if all that doesn't convince you, perhaps I'll pull out the good book:

[ QUOTE ]
Hebrews 6:4-6 (NIV)
4| It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5| who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6| if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: A Question For David S.
 

[ QUOTE ]
What you say may be true for the easily-persuadable. But, for firm skeptics like myself (and Sklansky), practicing Christianity will more likely lead us to commit suicide than it would be to convice us that it was true.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll respond to you, hopefully DS will chip in. Firstly you've conceeded the argument in general but say it may not apply in some hard cases. If that's correct then its not a refutation, the bet is a good bet for many (if there were no other refutations).

That leaves some hard case, I include myself as a hard case. I cannot imagine anyway I could ever believe that christianity is correct and I cannot imagine anyone harder to persuade than me, but as DS will testify I've been wrong before.

Its very hard to argue that this is a refutation in the hard cases because you are starting from a position of non-belief and have to show there is at least as much chance of becoming a believer if you dont practice than if you do (even if christianity is true).

You can just deny that practising can ever lead a true skeptic to true christain belief but thats itself a highly non-skeptical belief. Any true skeptic knows they might be wrong about that. So you have to make an argument about different kinds of belief that allow you to know for certain that you can never believe christainity is true even if it is. I'd love to see the argument but suggest it will always leave room for doubt.

That leaves the issue of whether non-practice is at least as likely to lead to belief. That may be true for you as you've tried practicing, but the bet is not aimed at you. You've already taken the bet and as you ended up not believing its probably a better bet to stop practising. However for those who haven't ever seriously practised and who don't believe, it seems obvious there is more chance they will end up as believers if they give it a try.

I'm not saying this a is knock-down logical refutation of the refutation but it does show that the refutation is very weak. If there were no other refutations then anyone should try practicing unless they know that they won't be persuaded (which they can't) or they believe its at least as likely that they will be persuaded by non-practice (which seems implausible).

chez

Re: A Question For David S.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, do you really think God will be pleased that you took Him on a freeroll?

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] Good one.

Re: A Question For David S.
 

I'll refute your refutation of my refutation by completely agreeing. There is a chance that you can make yourself believe pretty much anything if you really wanted to. However, you can't just "choose" to believe it, in the sense that most people think of when discussing Pascal's wager.

I'd guess I could make myself belive that I am a pink monkey trapped inside of a human body. Given enough time, money, energy, shock-therapy, and torture... I'm sure I could break myself mentally into believing that.

BUT... (and here's where my refutation will come out on top, and forces you all-in)... I cannot just CHOOSE to make that choice. If I were to make the choice to put myself into the situation to be brain-washed, there would have to be enough influences that persuaded me to do that. So, in other words, even I could choose to put myself into the situation to be brain-washed in response to a "Pascal Wager"... I can't just choose to make that choice.

And the river card is...

Re: A Question For David S.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'll refute your refutation of my refutation by completely agreeing. There is a chance that you can make yourself believe pretty much anything if you really wanted to. However, you can't just "choose" to believe it, in the sense that most people think of when discussing Pascal's wager.

I'd guess I could make myself belive that I am a pink monkey trapped inside of a human body. Given enough time, money, energy, shock-therapy, and torture... I'm sure I could break myself mentally into believing that.

BUT... (and here's where my refutation will come out on top, and forces you all-in)... I cannot just CHOOSE to make that choice. If I were to make the choice to put myself into the situation to be brain-washed, there would have to be enough influences that persuaded me to do that. So, in other words, even I could choose to put myself into the situation to be brain-washed in response to a "Pascal Wager"... I can't just choose to make that choice.

And the river card is...

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed that you can't just choose to believe, but the wager is that it is +ev to become a practising christian.

Its not quite forcing yourself to believe because you want to. Its deliberately exposing yourself to a situation where you increase your chances of believing (like studying physics in my earlier post).

Denying free will works, I look forward to seeing that in some poker posts? Is raising or calling more +ev, neither cos you have no choice which to do [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

chez

Re: A Question For David S.
 

The river was a rag... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed that you can't just choose to believe, but the wager is that it is +ev to become a practising christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

The wager was to believe. You said that even though you can't choose to believe, you can choose to start practicing to increase your chances of believing. My response was that I can't just "choose" to want to do that, though. Unless I have a compelling reason, then I won't do it. So, unless that wager is compelling to me, then I won't start practicing such that I might start believing.

It would be far easier for me to get on a diet & exercise routine... to lose weight. I am practically guaranteed of the results. But, for some reason, even when I start, I'm not compelled to keep it up. I think I need some shock therapy & torture to make me want to get in shape! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Denying free will works, I look forward to seeing that in some poker posts? Is raising or calling more +ev, neither cos you have no choice which to do [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

My choices must be compelled by my strongest desire. Most poker players are playing for money... and it's tangible, right on the table. That's usually compelling enough to motivate people to make the most +EV play. Now, if the winner of the tournament weren't going to get the money until he died, then, well... I wouldn't be playing in the tournament.

Re: A Question For David S.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The wager was to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]
Even pascal realised that you can't choose what to believe. Anyway it doesn't really matter, the refutation we are talking about only applies to the proposition that practising christianiny is +ev.

As to the rest, I apologise that my post took us down the line of whether we should choose to take the bet. All that matters is whether its +ev or not, obviously many people turn doen +ev bets all the time.

My last paragraph should have said:

I'm not saying this a is knock-down logical refutation of the refutation but it does show that the refutation is very weak. If there were no other refutations then having a serious try at practising christianianity is +ev unless there is no chance of being persuaded (no-one can justifiable argue there is no chance) or there's a greater likelyhood of being persuaded by never practicing (which is implausible).

I think you agreed with that. Stick or twist [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

chez