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.

[chezlaw]

[ 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

[Mackerel]

[ 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

[Mackerel]

[ 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

[Lestat]

[ 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.

[David Sklansky]

"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.

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.

[ 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 ]

[chezlaw]

[ 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

[Jeff V]

[ 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.