Non Believers Predominate Heaven? Just Maybe.

[David Sklansky]

The thread about whether athiests would take an absolution "freeroll" offer, and their replies that they wouldn't, got me to thinking.

Many of the atheists replied that if God was good, he would reward their rationality. Which reminded me of the argument against Pascal's wager pointing out that perhaps God sends non believers instead of believers to heaven.

I have always regarded that argument a little silly as I'm sure most thiests do. Logically correct, but silly. But it just dawned on me that the concepts involved are analagous to something I have written about regarding crime and punishment.

I am on record as saying that the existence of punishment for crimes is only necessary to stop very bad people from committing them. And I do mean very bad. Worse than the criminals themselves. Pure common sense. Any man who refrains from raping a woman because he doesn't want to spend ten years in jail, is no better and probably worse, than an actual rapist. Any person who would rob a bank if they were sure they could get away with it, but doesn't because they aren't, is at least as bad a person as an actual bank robber. The only difference between them is that the bank robber is crazy or less worried about jail. Their disregard for others is totally equal.

A simple enough concept for humans to understand. Why can't God see this concept too? And act on it?

[DougShrapnel]

If we wish to examine this furthur, we can see that the reason why people are able to get past the apparent short-sightedness of God. Is that faith in God allows "evil" people to change thier belief about the correctness of robbing banks or rapping women. So what does that say about or crimianl system. It states in obvious terms that the criminal system should be designed to allow very bad people to change thier beliefs.

[chezlaw]

I think you may have missed the strength of the refutation. Its exactly the right refutation because its so insanely unlikely that the rational end up in heaven.

insanely unlikely * infinite reward is exactly the right balance for the proposed upside.

chez

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Pure common sense. Any man who refrains from raping a woman because he doesn't want to spend ten years in jail, is no better and probably worse, than an actual rapist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every viewpoint has a slant. Two that seem essentially deep rooted in people and show up in almost every undertaking from the smallest daily chore to the biggest decisions are the 'intent/motivation matters' and "results/outcome matter" views.

To a fair degree this plays out in the theist/atheist debates. Daddydvo's deathbed thread is an example. You can divide the people into those, like daddydvo, who argue that it's important THAT you believe, and a lot of others who say it's important WHY you believe.

Your agument appears to depend on 'intent' being higher valued than the act when it comes to assigning 'badness'. A lot of religion is built on the opposite premise as many theist comments on this forum illustrate.

Although a lot would be more attracted one way or the other, I'm not claiming that all individual people on either side of the debate are innately 'intent based' or 'result based' but that a lot of their arguments are.

There are other filters to run arguments and positions through, I just find this theme to be a useful one also.

luckyme

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
The thread about whether athiests would take an absolution "freeroll" offer, and their replies that they wouldn't, got me to thinking.

Many of the atheists replied that if God was good, he would reward their rationality. Which reminded me of the argument against Pascal's wager pointing out that perhaps God sends non believers instead of believers to heaven.

I have always regarded that argument a little silly as I'm sure most thiests do. Logically correct, but silly.


[/ QUOTE ]

If the argument is logically correct, then how is it "silly?" I can only think of one possible sense: since the concept of "god" (as well as "heaven" or "hell") is ultimately arbitrary and meaningless, then it's futile to attempt to maximize a cost function by adopting a particular belief system.

[ QUOTE ]

But it just dawned on me that the concepts involved are analagous to something I have written about regarding crime and punishment.

I am on record as saying that the existence of punishment for crimes is only necessary to stop very bad people from committing them. And I do mean very bad. Worse than the criminals themselves. Pure common sense. Any man who refrains from raping a woman because he doesn't want to spend ten years in jail, is no better and probably worse, than an actual rapist. Any person who would rob a bank if they were sure they could get away with it, but doesn't because they aren't, is at least as bad a person as an actual bank robber. The only difference between them is that the bank robber is crazy or less worried about jail. Their disregard for others is totally equal.

A simple enough concept for humans to understand. Why can't God see this concept too? And act on it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just one of the multitude of ways the Christian "god" is a hopeless morass of contradictions. But posing this question is perhaps a little silly.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
I am on record as saying that the existence of punishment for crimes is only necessary to stop very bad people from committing them. And I do mean very bad. Worse than the criminals themselves. Pure common sense. Any man who refrains from raping a woman because he doesn't want to spend ten years in jail, is no better and probably worse, than an actual rapist. Any person who would rob a bank if they were sure they could get away with it, but doesn't because they aren't, is at least as bad a person as an actual bank robber. The only difference between them is that the bank robber is crazy or less worried about jail. Their disregard for others is totally equal.


[/ QUOTE ]

I forgot to mention another point in my first reply...

I disagree that the hypothetical person who refrains from, say raping, only due to fear of going to jail, is "worse" than an actual rapist.

The reason is as follows. Both the actual rapist and the potential rapist share the irrational (and evil) desire to rape. However, the potential rapist is more rational in one aspect: he at least recognizes and desires to avoid the negative consequences that raping someone would bring to him. This not only makes him less dangerous to others, but slightly morally superior to the actual rapist.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> The reason is as follows. Both the actual rapist and the potential rapist share the irrational (and evil) desire to rape. However, the potential rapist is more rational in one aspect: he at least recognizes and desires to avoid the negative consequences that raping someone would bring to him. This not only makes him less dangerous to others, but slightly morally superior to the actual rapist.
</font>

Please expound on this, because it doesn't make sense to me if you flip it around.

If person A does a good deed out of no other reason than wanting to help someone, and person B does a good deed mainly because of some perceived gain, does this not make person A morally superior to person B?

I fail to see how an act based on fear of personal repurcussions can ever be morally superior to an act based on one's own rationality.

How can those who believe in God and base their actions mainly out of fear for their perceived repurcussions of non-belief, be morally superior to those who simply base their actions on what is rational to them?

[Edit:] Hold off. Many flaws above. I wrote too hastily. But perhaps you can see what I'm getting at anyway.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Any man who refrains from raping a woman because he doesn't want to spend ten years in jail, is no better and probably worse, than an actual rapist.


[/ QUOTE ]

At least you're beginning to see that motive is an important ingredient in moral judgments.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
A simple enough concept for humans to understand. Why can't God see this concept too? And act on it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that "concepts" are something that bother any god too much. That's also why it is usally a bit easier to be a god than a human being, although there are some exceptions.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Any person who would rob a bank if they were sure they could get away with it, but doesn't because they aren't, is at least as bad a person as an actual bank robber. The only difference between them is that the bank robber is crazy or less worried about jail. Their disregard for others is totally equal.

A simple enough concept for humans to understand. Why can't God see this concept too? And act on it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Be careful, you are starting to sound like one of them.