"If I am right, I go to heaven, if you are right, you die anyway."

[wynn]

Before one places oneself under anything, or refuses to do so, it would behoove that one understand the exact formulations and requirements.

Not true. There are a nigh infinite number of things in the world one could buy in to. There is not infinite time to assess each one. We have to do some amount of guessing, even it we risk rejecting some things that might be legit. This gives rise to "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck..." It's not ideal, but it has to be done.

Your wisdom is a direct result of how well you can do it and get it right.

Oh. So it's stupid to read your employment contract?

[wynn]

Absolution.........


So if you kill millions of people intentionally you can get absolution from your bad ways and still get into "heaven" , this seems to let everyone in no matter how good or bad they were and that would make me want to avoid the place with people like that in there already!

You are working yourself up over nothing.

It is said that no sinful thing comes into heaven, and that those who do get into heaven are previously washed of their sins.

If Hitler were to get into heaven, he certainly wouldn't be killing Jews there, or do anything of that kind. Washed of his sins, he'd be practically unrecognizable to us.

[Arioch]

@wynn --

Oh. So it's stupid to read your employment contract?

That's a straw man argument and you know it. Why must you insist on making logically fallacious arguments?

[lightgigantic]

What is communism/eugenics? How did it get into the equation?
The choice is not between the popular "rendition" of one extreme ideology or another; it's between placing yourself under [the current version of] a set of religious laws or cleaving to your own.

for a vast majority of people, placing themselves under [the current version of] a set of religious laws doesn't involve condemning delusional young females to burn at the stake and taking away the lives, homes and freedom of peoples considered 'pagan'

... and furthermore, the notion of cleaving to one's own set of social/legal norms is not really an option

[DaveC426913]

That's a straw man argument and you know it.

It is, but I'm not sure Wynn realizes it. So I'll address it if it helps Wynn understand the principle.

Oh. So it's stupid to read your employment contract?

I'll counter with: do you indiscriminately read the employment contract of every place you've ever applied to? Or do you filter out the 95% of the places that don't call you in for an interview, and only read the contracts of the ones that stand a high probability of coming to fruition - such as the ones that call you in for an interview and present you with a contract?



Since the number of things we can buy in to is far smaller than the number things we can reject, it is feasible to closely examine the things we buy in to.

Imagine you're on a Cosmic Game Show, and 1000 philosophies/religions are presented before you. You can only choose a few (since your life is finite). You will rapidly dismiss 950 of the ones that want money, body parts or your children. But a few look promising. Before buying in, you examine those closely.

See?

[Yazata]

"If I am right, I go to heaven, if you are right, you die anyway."

My response to that would probably be something like, 'Yeah, I guess. I don't think you are right.'

It's kind of like me saying, 'If I'm right, I'm Jesus Christ. If you are right, you're just some insignificant human.'

This sort of thinking seems to justify any kind of grandiose belief about one's self or one's fate, without any regard to its truth, just because it's more grandiose than whatever the alternative is.

Unfortunately, madness seems to lie in that direction.

[wynn]

It is, but I'm not sure Wynn realizes it. So I'll address it if it helps Wynn understand the principle.


I'll counter with: do you indiscriminately read the employment contract of every place you've ever applied to? Or do you filter out the 95% of the places that don't call you in for an interview, and only read the contracts of the ones that stand a high probability of coming to fruition - such as the ones that call you in for an interview and present you with a contract?



Since the number of things we can buy in to is far smaller than the number things we can reject, it is feasible to closely examine the things we buy in to.

Imagine you're on a Cosmic Game Show, and 1000 philosophies/religions are presented before you. You can only choose a few (since your life is finite). You will rapidly dismiss 950 of the ones that want money, body parts or your children. But a few look promising. Before buying in, you examine those closely.

See?

For crying out loud, go back to what I first said: it was you who started with the strawman of my comment.

[keith1]

I've lived both sides of the fence...
A gated community is much like a cage, where it can become confusing as to which side of the bars is found the majority of stifled beasts.
An unrealistic and unsatisfactory heaven needs a hell to compensate it's deficiencies.
A real heaven would not have the capacity to be deficient.
--keith1

[Jeeves]

for a vast majority of people, placing themselves under [the current version of] a set of religious laws doesn't involve condemning delusional young females to burn at the stake and taking away the lives, homes and freedom of peoples considered 'pagan'

And minorities don't count - obviously.

... and furthermore, the notion of cleaving to one's own set of social/legal norms is not really an option

I didn't say legal or social norms; nice switcheroo! Without moral choice, free will, or whatever having an option is called - this whole discussion is devoid of a subject.

[lightgigantic]

And minorities don't count - obviously.

well sure ... unless you want to talk again about burning people at the stake as an inevitable consequence of a person becoming religious

I didn't say legal or social norms;

this is what you said :

it's between placing yourself under [the current version of] a set of religious laws or cleaving to your own.

nice switcheroo! Without moral choice, free will, or whatever having an option is called - this whole discussion is devoid of a subject.

what you are missing is that having a moral choice, free will, or whatever having an option is called is historically documented as not being diametrically opposed to religion.

In fact you could even say that following the path of the historical representation, practice and organization of religion is precisely about the re-assessment of details of morality, social justice etc.

[Jeeves]

well sure ... unless you want to talk again about burning people at the stake as an inevitable consequence of a person becoming religious

You mean this?

Biggest drawback: hedging your bet on that assumption may well mean condemning delusional young females to burn at the stake and taking away the lives, homes and freedom of peoples considered 'pagan' - i.e. breaches of a secular morality you may hold dear.

I don't see "inevitable consequence". In the seventeenth century the possibility wasn't that far fetched.

this is what you said :

it's between placing yourself under [the current version of] a set of religious laws or cleaving to your own.

Which holds true when you join any religion: you take on the moral precepts of the church, which usually means abandoning your earlier ones if they are in conflict. So?

what you are missing is that having a moral choice, free will, or whatever having an option is called is historically documented as not being diametrically opposed to religion.

For the believer, or one who fits into the religion, no. But he's not the subject of Pascal's Gambit.
The point is not whether the church's attitude at any particular moment is inimical to one's own, but that, in joining a church out of expediency, one allows the institutional moral code to override one's own from that time forward.
If you're right, i may go to hell, so i'll pretend that you're right, just in case. But if you're wrong, i've given up my moral autonomy for nothing.


I understood

... and furthermore, the notion of cleaving to one's own set of social/legal norms is not really an option

to mean that people can't have their own moral codes. If you just meant they have to obey the law of their country, that's true but irrelevant.

This i don't understand at all.

In fact you could even say that following the path of the historical representation, practice and organization of religion is precisely about the re-assessment of details of morality, social justice etc.

[lightgigantic]

You mean this?


I don't see "inevitable consequence". In the seventeenth century the possibility wasn't that far fetched.

Similarly being a staunch atheist during a certain era of russian politics also sees similar opportunities present themselves (on a grander scale)

Which holds true when you join any religion: you take on the moral precepts of the church, which usually means abandoning your earlier ones if they are in conflict. So?

Actually usually it works the other way around - one takes on moral precepts and then joins a religion

For the believer, or one who fits into the religion, no. But he's not the subject of Pascal's Gambit.
The point is not whether the church's attitude at any particular moment is inimical to one's own, but that, in joining a church out of expediency, one allows the institutional moral code to override one's own from that time forward.
If you're right, i may go to hell, so i'll pretend that you're right, just in case. But if you're wrong, i've given up my moral autonomy for nothing.

I'm not sure what inextricable connection you are drawing between believing in the existence of god and over-riding some moral issue.
I mean its not like belief in god requires one to burn people at the stake, is it?

to mean that people can't have their own moral codes. If you just meant they have to obey the law of their country, that's true but irrelevant.

As well as that I meant its an imagination to think that you (or anyone) can have a moral code totally independent of the society you (or they) arose in.

This i don't understand at all.

What to speak of having a moral choice within the framework of religious doctrine, changing norms on morality are historically documented to influence how one approaches the framework of religious doctrine.

For instance, even though Catholicism is certainly not my favourite take on theism, there is no denying that its flexibility and ability to adapt has certainly led to it being one of the most longest/prominent traditions

[Jeeves]

What we've been talking about:

It states that if you were to analyse your options in regard to belief in Pascal's God carefully (or belief in any other religious system with a similar reward and punishment scheme), you would come out with the following possibilities:

- You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to heaven.
- You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case you gain nothing.
- You may not believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which you gain nothing again.
- You may not believe in God, and God may exist, in which case you will be punished.

From these possibilities, and the principles of statistics, Pascal deduced that it would be better to believe in God unconditionally. It is a classic application of game theory to itemize options and payoffs and is valid within its assumptions.

and it's silly because it's based on a several premises that are fr from proven.
It's more a thought experiment: Christian meets mathematician... no real people or religious experience involved.

[DaveC426913]

For crying out loud, go back to what I first said: it was you who started with the strawman of my comment.

I am not above admittiing it if I am wrong. Please explain to me again what it is you said and then how I turned it into a strawman.

[keith1]

It's a lame statement in that it completely ignores the two most significant and equally valid assumptions:

- You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case you have wasted your valuable time (which is much more devastating than, "gain nothing"--a negative being worse than a zero).

- You may not believe in God, and God may exist, in which case you may not be punished, as you always have enough time to be forgiven at the last moment.

[lightgigantic]

What we've been talking about:



and it's silly because it's based on a several premises that are fr from proven.
It's more a thought experiment: Christian meets mathematician... no real people or religious experience involved.

wagers begin precisely where attempts at proof exhaust themselves

[lightgigantic]

It's a lame statement in that it completely ignores the two most significant and equally valid assumptions:

- You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case you have wasted your valuable time (which is much more devastating than, "gain nothing"--a negative being worse than a zero).

- You may not believe in God, and God may exist, in which case you may not be punished, as you always have enough time to be forgiven at the last moment.

the first is already entailed in the wager
the second is unclear in how that precisely works

[DaveC426913]

the second is unclear in how that precisely works

Deathbed converts. With your last breath, you can always repent, and you will be forgiven.

At least, that's the popular thinking.

[lightgigantic]

Deathbed converts. With your last breath, you can always repent, and you will be forgiven.

At least, that's the popular thinking.

sounds rhetorical

[wynn]

At least, that's the popular thinking.

Exactly. And popular thinking is not celebrated for being philosophically sound or mature.