Pascal's Wager

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
you made my point. i am speechless. this is what i mean: before we start 'debating' 1) what do we take pascal to mean by 'god'?. 2) what do we take pascal to mean by 'exist'. 3)what will we accept as an adequate definition of 'wagering'?............you may not think these are necessary questions to ask, but where subjects such as this are discussed by professional academics, and those in training, it can take many hours at the black board working out some agreement on the logics of these various terms................b

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are studying Pascal then it may be important to worry about that stuff but we are assming the questioner is asking about the basic idea represented by the label 'pascals wager'.

and the basic idea is taking a bet with an infinite upside and finite downside. The refutation is clearly evident in the responses.

It seems obvious that the idea and refutation is independent of what Pascal meant by god etc.


chez

[bearly]

your response was a very good one. right on target. it shows, i believe, that math and physics are serious subjects, but philosophy, and conceptual analysis in general, are just for recreational thinking..........b

[bearly]

well ayt., i think it is safe to say that dedicated thinkers are seldom taken seriously by the general public. it is a good defense mech. after all, how would one feel about the state of their own intellectual powers if they took a look at what serious thinkers do? by the way, there is a lot more time and effort devoted to unravelling conceptual confusions than you might think. try modern modal logics, linguistics, philosophy of mind (the new metaphysics) and artificial intelligence................b

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
your response was a very good one. right on target. it shows, i believe, that math and physics are serious subjects, but philosophy, and conceptual analysis in general, are just for recreational thinking..........b

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read this several times and can't see how you reached your conclusion. There's a red light on my sarcasm detector but no reading.

Would you care to explain what you mean?

chez

[bearly]

sure, you were right in taking the 'everybody knows what he means by x' approach. but, in physics for example, a high degree of specificity is required. in serious conceptual analysis a similar degree of precision is required. (that is, the dicussion should be able to be expressed in a logic of some modality). when matters of a speculative nature are discussed off-handedly (c'mon, everybody knows) that is recreational thinking. a far better use of time, by the way, than the drivel that passes for mental stimulation on tv.........................b

[ QUOTE ]
a high degree of specificity is required.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please define what you mean by "specificity." How are we to have a meaningful discussion when you just throw these words around without definition? Also, what does "required" mean? And what do you mean by "is"?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
sure, you were right in taking the 'everybody knows what he means by x' approach. but, in physics for example, a high degree of specificity is required. in serious conceptual analysis a similar degree of precision is required. (that is, the dicussion should be able to be expressed in a logic of some modality). when matters of a speculative nature are discussed off-handedly (c'mon, everybody knows) that is recreational thinking. a far better use of time, by the way, than the drivel that passes for mental stimulation on tv.........................b

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh! got you know, I think you're still wrong because people understand the responses enough to understand how pascal's wager is refuted.

I'm usually the one being accused of going into too much specificity but its not

'a high degree of specificity is required'

its 'the required degree of specificity is required'

and I think we met that requirement as explained above. We didn't meet it for people who don't understand the nature of pascal's wager, but most do and nobody asked for a detailed explanation.

chez

[ZeeJustin]

There are everal possible arguments.
1) The chance that god exists could be infinitesmal.
2) There is not necessarily an infinite upside to believing in god (this could be for several reasons. Perhaps you believe in the wrong god. Perhaps you won't necessarily get into heaven. Perhaps you worship the correct god and still go to hell anyway).

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone have arguments against Pascal's Wager?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) The upside may be finite. If God is real, there is no reason to believe that "heaven" exists, or if it does, that its "infinitely" +EV.

2) Plus, discarding reason during your lifetime in favor of theist myths may also be viewed as a real loss in that you only had one life -- just this one chance -- to use your brain to its fullest but you chose to fill it with silly beliefs.

3) There may be other mystical explanations in which your use of your faculties to their fullest will gain you reward but not using them will result in a worse state for your "soul".

[bearly]

gee, zee is implicitly suggesting we need a little more specificity concerning 'god'..........b