Backgammon, Pascal, Sklanskyanity

[Zeno]

Sklanskyanity would not suffice as a religion to the vast majority (or would only appeal to a slim minority) of people on the planet and for some very practical reasons.

To wit:

1. There is no sacred book or text (or one has not been put forth yet anyway).
And you need one with some long history behind it to give it the proper aura and clout.

2. It lacks sufficient appeal to supernatural authority and has no earthy hierarchal structure.

3. There is a complete lack of ritual, worship, special days and/or years and other important celebrations.

4. No appeal to revelation is to be found.

5. The paucity of argumentum ad ignorantiam is conspicuous.

6. Blood sacrifices are not mentioned

5. Creeds are not yet established to be ritually mouthed incessantly in holy temples, all lead by those that know the intricacies of the espoused doctrine.

7. Logic and reason appear to dictate the one base creed, or to put it another way – it requires that you think, at least somewhat, for yourself.

8. A war, or at least some torture and killing, has yet to be fought over Sklanskyanity.

I invite others to add to the above at their leisure.

-Zeno, Infidel.

[David Sklansky]

Most of you guys are analyzing this with too fine a toothcomb. The main thing to understand is that if you believe that IF there is a God he wants us to behave a certain way, it is not necesaary that we believe that the existence of God is certain, or even probable, to make it a good bet to behave that way. The argument only falls apart if you believe one of the requirements God has of us is to be certain of his existence rather than to just assume it, as we do in some backgammon or bridge situations.

[PairTheBoard]

The belief that if there is a diety he must be a good diety rather than an evil one, is more a matter of faith than of reasonableness. You could cite a lot of evidence in making the case for an Evil Diety. Human beings don't seem to do this though. They consistently choose to ignore such evidence in favor of faith that God must be Good.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Most of you guys are analyzing this with too fine a toothcomb. The main thing to understand is that if you believe that IF there is a God he wants us to behave a certain way, it is not necesaary that we believe that the existence of God is certain, or even probable, to make it a good bet to behave that way. The argument only falls apart if you believe one of the requirements God has of us is to be certain of his existence rather than to just assume it, as we do in some backgammon or bridge situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. I think I buy that. I wonder if that's an innovation. It sounds like a strange blend of superstition, logic, and probabilities though. Sort of like, just in case stepping on this crack might break my mother's back I think I'll avoid it.

But if that's what convinces you to lead a good life then I've to to think it's a good thing.

PairTheBoard

[Pete H]

[ QUOTE ]
Pascal's wager, I believe, is basically the idea that you should believe in the Christian God because even if there is only a small chance that he exists, you are getting essentially "infinite odds" since it will get you into heaven. Flaws in this idea include the fact that other religions might believe that such a belief guarantees that you DON'T get into heaven (since you are blasphemous) and the concept that if your belief is based on Pascal's argument, you don't truly believe. You can't make yourself believe if you don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Biggest flaw is that by giving the infinite odds anything you think is god's will is +EV to follow.

If you think that killing as many people as you can will get you to heaven, that's worth betting.
You might also lose if that really wasn't god's will and you'll go to hell, but that's the same with every assumption as we don't have any way to know what god's will really is or is there any.

I think it would be the same if I'd spend eternity in hell or in heaven.
Without happiness there can't be pain and vice versa.
Christians I've spoken with try to explain that the happiness in heaven is unimaginable. Can't be 100% sure that they are wrong, but still my biggest fear is to live forever.

So in my opinion I don't achieve anything by following god's assumed will, as it doesn't matter (if there's no reward/punishment) or it'll lead me to place that is hell to me.

Not wagering at all is +EV in this life if I want to do anything that's against god's will and wouldn't do it if I followed the rules.

[EightStuda]

It is my oppinion that David Sklanksy is a tool. I'm tired of your long-winded usless mind-benders. If you are as smart as you think you are why do you limit yourself to such a hack-forum?

-Dimitri

[reubenf]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm tired of your long-winded usless mind-benders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quick, obvious solution: Don't read them.

[David Sklansky]

"Biggest flaw is that by giving the infinite odds anything you think is god's will is +EV to follow."

Changing infinity to one to a googleplex to one solves a lot of these problems. Specifically it solves the problem of choosing between two contradictory theories as to God's wishes.

[goofball]

you mean 10 to the googleplex?

[David Sklansky]

"The belief that if there is a diety he must be a good diety rather than an evil one, is more a matter of faith than of reasonableness. You could cite a lot of evidence in making the case for an Evil Diety. Human beings don't seem to do this though. They consistently choose to ignore such evidence in favor of faith that God must be Good."

PairTheBoard

People sometimes take my posts too literally. What I was really tying to say had little to do with Pascal's wager. The main point was that for those who think there might be a God who punishes misdeeds, (especially if nothing good is done to make up for those misdeeds) there need not be something sinful about living your life as if there is such a god, even while you doubt his existence.

The fact that such an attitude would fix most of the problems with Pascal's wager was really mainly an afterthought.