The Prisoner's Dilemma and Religion

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
Christianity makes people happy by inducing them to treat each other better

[/ QUOTE ]

Happy? Really? Inducing them how?

[andyfox]

"All I'm trying to get at it that while you personally may not have any proof of the existence of God, the belief in God would not have survived for so long if NO ONE ever had ANY reason to believe."

But the reason may be completedly invalid. The Amerindians (and most "aborigines") believe in earth gods, not sky gods. Their attitude towards nature and wilderness (among other things) is consequently far different than sky god religions'. Both Cherokees and Spaniards may have had a reason for belief in God (or gods) but those reasons might have been fear or superstition or tradition. And certainly at least one of them was wrong is their beliefs. (I mean wrong in the sense that they both couldn't have been correct is their definition of god.)

Lots of beliefs survive for a long time despite the fact that they're wrong. People in power have an interest in perpetuating those beliefs, or the beliefs just become "commmon knowledge" over a period of time. Most people, for example, believe that stone age people's lives were nasty, short and brutish. Yet there is evidence that, to the contrary, they lived lives of leisure and satisfaction. The nasty, short and brutish theory was developed by western philosophers/economists who reasoned that since the stone-agers had very little, they must have been unhappy. But, more likely, they wanted very little, so they were not unhappy with what they had (a sort of zen approach to life).

The survival of a belief is indeed evidence of a need to belive it, but not evidence of its accuracy or truthfulness.

[Wahoo91]

This is supported by the obvious manipluations of the editing of both the text and context of the bible by the early Roman Catholic Church. Anything that went against the wishes or expressed dogma of the RCC was disgarded or edited to meet thier standards.

My eternal question has always been, not does God exist (I believe God exists), but what are his "real" teachings, if any, and what is the "real" goal in life? It sometimes seems much too simple to "believe in me and you shall be saved".

Has the "real" message been lost through the millenia? Was there ever a "real" message from God that has not been manipulated by man to serve their purpose at the time?

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Christianity makes people happy by inducing them to treat each other better

[/ QUOTE ]

Happy? Really? Inducing them how?

[/ QUOTE ]

Giving up the things of this world to follow Christ doesn't usually make a person happy. Its like a long term investment though. Build up your treasures in heaven not on the earth.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
Giving up the things of this world to follow Christ doesn't usually make a person happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it does.

Justin A

[James Boston]

I respect your point of view, and you made a very lucid point. But honestly, in spite of what you already believe, would it be possible for something to happen (as improbable as it may seem) to change your mind? In my example of Jesus feeding the multitudes, were you to experience such a thing, what would you think? If you watched a man turn water into wine, what would you think? I know that non-religious people dismiss these stories as fairy-tales, but if they did in fact happen, you could see how people's belief in the Christian God has survived for so long.

[andyfox]

Many people believe in miracles. Usually they're either a product of ignorance, trickery, or willful self-delusion (or some combination of those). It's not uncommon when a meteorite is visible for new stations to get reports from people reporting they saw head peering out of the portholes of the spaceships. Once Columbus knew an eclipse was coming and told the Indians if they didn't do what he wanted them to he'd make the sun disappear. Lo and behold, he was true to his word. What did they think?

No matter what I would experience, no matter how inexplicable, there is no way I would think a man who lived and died 2,000 years ago had anything to do with it.

[James Boston]

OK, but let me put it another way because I think you missed my point. I have never experienced a miracle either. I wasn't asking if you would credit the unexplainable to Jesus. I was asking if, 2000 years ago, you saw Jesus perform the miracles that are in the Bible, would you believe then?

[slickpoppa]

This version of the prisoner's dilemma is slightly wrong. If they both talk, they both get a reduced sentence that is greater than 1 year but less than 10. They do not both get 10 years if they both talk.

[andyfox]

Here's what I found that, having not heard of The Prisoner's Dilemma, explained it most clearly to me when I Googled it:

Tanya and Cinque have been arrested for robbing the Hibernia Savings Bank and placed in separate isolation cells. Both care much more about their personal freedom than about the welfare of their accomplice. A clever prosecutor makes the following offer to each. "You may choose to confess or remain silent. If you confess and your accomplice remains silent I will drop all charges against you and use your testimony to ensure that your accomplice does serious time. Likewise, if your accomplice confesses while you remain silent, they will go free while you do the time. If you both confess I get two convictions, but I'll see to it that you both get early parole. If you both remain silent, I'll have to settle for token sentences on firearms possession charges. If you wish to confess, you must leave a note with the jailer before my return tomorrow morning."

The "dilemma" faced by the prisoners here is that, whatever the other does, each is better off confessing than remaining silent. But the outcome obtained when both confess is worse for each than the outcome they would have obtained had both remained silent. A common view is that the puzzle illustrates a conflict between individual and group rationality. A group whose members pursue rational self-interest may all end up worse off than a group whose members act contrary to rational self-interest. More generally, if the payoffs are not assumed to represent self-interest, a group whose members rationally pursue any goals may all meet less success than if they had not rationally pursued their goals individually.