Pascal's Wager--another perspective.

[sephiroth clock]

It is possible that God doesn't exist, although I do believe in God and I highly doubt I will ever NOT believe in God. It is possible that atheism is the most accurate depiction of the Universe and spirituality is false. However, even though I recognize that this could be true (although I do not believe it to be so), I am not motivated to prove it to be so as I enjoy being a spiritual person and studying religions and enlightenment and living life guided ultimately by spiritual goals. As I ultimately motivated by my own happiness, it makes no difference to me as to whether or not we live in a Godless universe. I believe that we do so strongly that the possibility of Godlessness will never bother me. Thus I will never contemplate it seriously.

[Vampyre]

It's good to see that you admit your beliefs cause you to have difficulty contemplating atheism. At least you've considered both possibilities to some extent. That's basically the position I would assume most atheists to be in or relative to. Not the belief in god, but the possibility. It just then becomes a decision of whether or not to take the leap of faith.

[juroara]

I don't believe in a leap of faith I don't believe anyone can take a leap of faith, without already having faith I believe people believe what they believe because they have a strong conviction to believe in what they believe in *hey it's not my fault the english language uses a lot of words* a leap of faith? that usually just translates to believing in something out of insecurity. or ironically, believe out of doubt. such as someone who joins a church because they feel an emptiness in their life. but unless they already believe.....in what they believe...there will always be doubt. they will remain doubtful, or insecure, unless they begin to feel differently about what is and what isn't reality at the end of the day 'truth' isn't a logical argument. when I say truth, I don't mean scientific truth, which can change as we learn more. I mean that which you believe to be an absolute truth. What you believe reailty is or isn't. your absolute truths aren't actually absolute. they are yours alone. and are subject to change based on how you view the world around you. or how you FEEL about the world. and because we are mere human beings in a mere instant in time...unless you are the absolute truth, you can not know absolute truth. don't believe me that our reality is based on how we feel more than logic? logic would paint a grim picture. "life is miserable suffering, and if God is real, he sure as hell doesn't care". thats what logic says. but you can say that all humans are born miserable, crying being our first words. our misery leads us on a quest to find happiness. apathy is giving up. which only led to an even more depressing and meaningless life. (called the american life) the search for happiness take us on a quest of truth. and happiness itself becomes the very measure of that which we define as truth. even science is an invention of man to enrinch man's life, becuase the wilderness didn't give him the happiness he wanted the theist who finds himself unhappy with church begins to question the truth that church teaches. they have doubt because they are unhappy. and the more this God gets in the way of their happiness for one reason or another, the more they conclude, this God can't be real. they might eventually become atheist and feel a liberty they never knew before. in short happiness. but how long does that happiness last, when life used to have a greater meaning? when you used to be an immortal being? when you used to have the promise of heaven? either they become apathetic, or embark on a new quest of happiness. the child who is born atheist is told by their parents 'Life has no greater meaning. So just make the best of it...good luck'.but their drive for happiness can't be satisfied by the status quo of life. So they look else where. The child studies religions of the world, finds threads that connects them all, and finds spirituality. this isn't a make belief argument. born and bred atheists have grown up to be very spiritual theists. despite being born into a household that only taught science. why do you think this is? you can make all the logical arguments in the world that you want........but you're only human. you're emotional. you can't help it. it's what you are. on this forum so called logical arguments are fueled by an angry emotional past. most debates here just sound like dogs barking mad at each other. you think atheists who hold onto science as the only truth do so out of logic? atheists who think anything spiritual is ridiculous? when other atheists welcome and/or practice spirituality? what's the difference??? many atheists were hurt by religion. they're afraid spirituality will take them back to religion, that which oppressed them. materialistic atheists are just looking for happiness like everyone else. at this current rate, they won't find it. heck, the don't even believe in it. because such happiness doesn't even exist in the realm of science. ******************************** when you find happiness as deep as the ocean nothing can shake it. nothing. not religion. not science. not anyone debating with you. nothing. not even logic. happiness as deep as the ocean becomes absolute. which is why this happiness, is the only absolute truth you will ever know.

[Vampyre]

at the end of the day 'truth' isn't a logical argument. when I say truth, I don't mean scientific truth, which can change as we learn more. This is a bit off topic and sort of semantic, but I doubt you'd ever hear a scientist refer to a "scientific truth" because everything a scientist does, we're always well aware that there are always possibilities of something being off and skewing results. That chance is less than 2% in most cases. As such, a scientist should be more likely to say: "I've been given overwhelming evidence and reason to believe this is true." or a variation of that. logic would paint a grim picture. "life is miserable suffering, and if God is real, he sure as hell doesn't care". thats what logic says. My logic would be painted more like: "Life is glorious. Take your time and truly appreciate it and its great gifts it offers you." I wouldn't reference God at all, because I don't reference things I can't evidentially support the existence (or non-existence) of. but you can say that all humans are born miserable, crying being our first words. our misery leads us on a quest to find happiness. apathy is giving up. which only led to an even more depressing and meaningless life. (called the american life) Babies don't cry in the womb, at least I don't think they do. When they actually come out, yeah, they cry in pain. At least it allows their lungs to perform correctly. Calling life, or the american life, depressing and meaningless is a bit crude and pessimistic. People who believe this (I'm assuming you do not) are probably depressed with themselves. That doesn't mean all atheists are depressed. and happiness itself becomes the very measure of that which we define as truth. even science is an invention of man to enrinch man's life, becuase the wilderness didn't give him the happiness he wanted Science is our way of attempting to understand things better. I wouldn't really think of it as being directly linked to happiness in the way you're suggesting. the theist who finds himself unhappy with church begins to question the truth that church teaches. they have doubt because they are unhappy. and the more this God gets in the way of their happiness for one reason or another, the more they conclude, this God can't be real. they might eventually become atheist and feel a liberty they never knew before. in short happiness. but how long does that happiness last, when life used to have a greater meaning? when you used to be an immortal being? when you used to have the promise of heaven? either they become apathetic, or embark on a new quest of happiness. This is a bit of a "chicken or the egg came first" type of logic, in regards to unhappiness being linked with questioning faith. Nonetheless, I don't really see how god's existence could impede happiness; regardless of whether or not you believe in him. the child who is born atheist is told by their parents 'Life has no greater meaning. So just make the best of it...good luck'.but their drive for happiness can't be satisfied by the status quo of life. So they look else where. The child studies religions of the world, finds threads that connects them all, and finds spirituality. this isn't a make belief argument. born and bred atheists have grown up to be very spiritual theists. despite being born into a household that only taught science. why do you think this is? you can make all the logical arguments in the world that you want........but you're only human. you're emotional. you can't help it. it's what you are. I have a friend who is the exact opposite. His father is a pastor, but he doesn't believe in religion at all. on this forum so called logical arguments are fueled by an angry emotional past. most debates here just sound like dogs barking mad at each other. Sometimes people misinterpret discussion as arguments. You don't think I'm just barking at you now do you? Cuz I'm just discussing. many atheists were hurt by religion. they're afraid spirituality will take them back to religion, that which oppressed them.. Have you done a study or know of anything to support this? How can a religion hurt someone? It may be viewed as a waste of time, but not damaging. And afraid of being pulled back? All the atheists I've talked to aren't afraid of that at all. If something was proposed that convinced them to believe in spirituality, they'd welcome it lovingly. However, nothing like that has happened to them. materialistic atheists are just looking for happiness like everyone else. at this current rate, they won't find it. heck, the don't even believe in it. because such happiness doesn't even exist in the realm of science In a manner of speaking, this is blasphemous towards atheism. You just said that an atheist can't be happy, which is clearly wrong. I know plenty of atheists who are happy. In fact, I know more religious people that're unhappy, than unhappy atheists. *** Overall, you appear to have a bit of a skewed generalization about science and atheists. What you have described may sound intriguing to some, and that's what I find odd about spirituality. It draws you in as if it has all the answers and is indisputable. That's where faith's strength lies though. Kinda like saying "Well, if you don't believe this, then you'll be punished. Too bad for you. Can't say I didn't try to help." It's very leading and manipulative.

[Photolysis]

this isn't a make belief argument. born and bred atheists have grown up to be very spiritual theists. despite being born into a household that only taught science. why do you think this is? Uh, because some children break out of their indoctrination? This goes both ways you know ... Not that I know of anyone who was indoctrinated in to atheism (the people I know were always told to think for themselves), but even if this is true, how is it relevant to anything? logic would paint a grim picture. "life is miserable suffering, and if God is real, he sure as hell doesn't care". thats what logic says. The truth can be grim; logic is a means of trying to identify the truth. The truth can also be beautiful. Furthermore, rational and mature people accept bad things and work to get through them, instead of hiding behind delusions. The idea you shouldn't accept something simply because the conclusion is "grim" is utterly childish. You should believe something because you believe it to be true (based on good reasons). "Believing that terrorist attack took place and killed many innocent people paints a grim picture. That's what reality says." when life used to have a greater meaning? How presumptuous. many atheists were hurt by religion. they're afraid spirituality will take them back to religion, that which oppressed them.. Source? Or are you just projecting on no basis as usual? materialistic atheists are just looking for happiness like everyone else. at this current rate, they won't find it. Wow. How insulting, and not to mention wrong. I for one, am happy. There are many things about the world that could be changed for the better, but I have the fortune of living a comfortable life without real hardship or pain, and at a time where knowledge and new ideas are more accessible than ever before. Furthermore, I am also comfortable with my worldview. I don't live in guilt from committing imaginary crimes, I don't fear the consequences of not believing in something, I don't feel a need to hold on to beliefs for the mere sake of doing so, I can admit when I don't know something without the need to rationalise it, and I am able to analyse myself and my beliefs and change them if needed. you can say that all humans are born miserable Ascribing the complex emotional state of misery to innate reflexive actions is utterly foolish. even science is an invention of man to enrinch man's life, becuase the wilderness didn't give him the happiness he wanted No, science is a means of trying to discern facts about reality. Engineering is application of this knowledge. And yes, the wilderness isn't much fun. Living a hard hunter-gatherer lifestyle, constantly worrying about disease, drought, famine, and all that other fun stuff is really great isn't it? The supreme irony really is that people like you only have time to indulge in your pseudo-philosophy because of science and its applications. Otherwise you would be too busy hunting for your next meal and worrying about starvation. on this forum so called logical arguments are fueled by an angry emotional past I am angry. Fear my logic. Rawr. I think /facepalm is appropriate here.

[Licity]

don't believe me that our reality is based on how we feel more than logic? logic would paint a grim picture. "life is miserable suffering, and if God is real, he sure as hell doesn't care". thats what logic says. So we can ignore what's really going on just because it makes us happy? but you can say that all humans are born miserable, crying being our first words. our misery leads us on a quest to find happiness. apathy is giving up. which only led to an even more depressing and meaningless life. (called the american life) the search for happiness take us on a quest of truth. and happiness itself becomes the very measure of that which we define as truth. even science is an invention of man to enrinch man's life, becuase the wilderness didn't give him the happiness he wanted See, I thought science was advanced so we could understand things around us, not because we were unhappy with "wilderness". I would also disagree that happiness = truth. the theist who finds himself unhappy with church begins to question the truth that church teaches. they have doubt because they are unhappy. and the more this God gets in the way of their happiness for one reason or another, the more they conclude, this God can't be real. they might eventually become atheist and feel a liberty they never knew before. in short happiness. but how long does that happiness last, when life used to have a greater meaning? when you used to be an immortal being? when you used to have the promise of heaven? either they become apathetic, or embark on a new quest of happiness. the child who is born atheist is told by their parents 'Life has no greater meaning. So just make the best of it...good luck'.but their drive for happiness can't be satisfied by the status quo of life. So they look else where. The child studies religions of the world, finds threads that connects them all, and finds spirituality. this isn't a make belief argument. born and bred atheists have grown up to be very spiritual theists. despite being born into a household that only taught science. So you have to be immortal to be happy? Athiests can't be happy because they don't believe in a greater meaning? on this forum so called logical arguments are fueled by an angry emotional past. You're the only one suggesting this, by the way. you think atheists who hold onto science as the only truth do so out of logic? atheists who think anything spiritual is ridiculous? Actually, yes, I do believe that at least some athiests hold onto science as the only truth due to their own logic. Why is this so hard to understand? what's the difference??? many atheists were hurt by religion. they're afraid spirituality will take them back to religion, that which oppressed them. materialistic atheists are just looking for happiness like everyone else. at this current rate, they won't find it. heck, the don't even believe in it. because such happiness doesn't even exist in the realm of science. Hurt by religion? You use this argument so often I wonder if you weren't hurt by an athiest at some point, which explains why you are so intent on belittling them at every chance you get. And why can't happiness be found in science?

[Xaqaria]

And why can't happiness be found in science? Because the language and methods of science are incapable of addressing the human condition. That is to say, one can be happy with a life in pursuit of scientific discovery, but one can never discover 'the answer' to happiness through science. Unless of course you believe happiness is merely a chemical response, in which case, maybe it can.

[Licity]

Because the language and methods of science are incapable of addressing the human condition. That is to say, one can be happy with a life in pursuit of scientific discovery, but one can never discover 'the answer' to happiness through science. Unless of course you believe happiness is merely a chemical response, in which case, maybe it can. I'm of the opinion that the scientific method will eventually explain everything, but we haven't gotten quite that far yet.

[Xei]

Why do you think that? Why do you think our circumstances will not make that inherently impossible? It's quite possible that there are things which exist yet cannot be seen or deduced. What if there are many other universes completely causally separate from our own? We'd never know about them. However, even though I recognize that this could be true (although I do not believe it to be so), I am not motivated to prove it to be so as I enjoy being a spiritual person and studying religions and enlightenment and living life guided ultimately by spiritual goals. I just can't stand doublethink. I can't 'force myself' to believe something, to me that is inherently paradoxical, because I'd be conscious of the trickery.

[Licity]

Why do you think that? Why do you think our circumstances will not make that inherently impossible? It's quite possible that there are things which exist yet cannot be seen or deduced. What if there are many other universes completely causally separate from our own? We'd never know about them. Problem is, if they are completely causally separate from our own, then we would have no need to treat them as existing because they would have absolutely no bearing on anything done locally. It's like the old "out of sight, out of mind" thing, but truly out of mind for everything in the universe.

[Xei]

Well I suppose that's just a semantic disagreement; I would say that things which don't affect my experience still objectively exist, but there we go. The existence of multiverses would have quite profound metaphysical implications though. It seems like quite a large failing if science doesn't encompass them.

[DeathCell]

The supreme irony really is that people like you only have time to indulge in your pseudo-philosophy because of science and its applications. Otherwise you would be too busy hunting for your next meal and worrying about starvation. Farming and it's applications are far older than the understanding of science. And stockading animal livestock for yourself... also older.. Science on the other hand made us far more cleanly and able to withstand disease. The anger ju speaks of, I see in you.

[Dreams4free]

It is possible that God doesn't exist, although I do believe in God and I highly doubt I will ever NOT believe in God. It is possible that atheism is the most accurate depiction of the Universe and spirituality is false. However, even though I recognize that this could be true (although I do not believe it to be so), I am not motivated to prove it to be so as I enjoy being a spiritual person and studying religions and enlightenment and living life guided ultimately by spiritual goals. As I ultimately motivated by my own happiness, it makes no difference to me as to whether or not we live in a Godless universe. I believe that we do so strongly that the possibility of Godlessness will never bother me. Thus I will never contemplate it seriously. Pascal's wager is a thinking man's sucker bet. You have delineated that you took the wager, and the fact that godlessness does not bother you. You have reduced living to basically a insurance plan that relieves you of philosophical tension with regards to meaning. You enjoy theosophy and being part of a bigger picture, as well as the perception of spiritual achievement, namely enlightenment. The only thing that troubles you is the other side of the coin, so to speak. Regardless you rather not bother in the pursuit of it, and let God explain your situation so you can go on enjoying what it is you do. Your situation is very common to your class, and it help's justify subject matter so that life doesn't have to be puzzle. I think what you fear, the most common universal condition of man, is the fact that life would not be enjoyable without God. Hopefully that doesn't restrict you in your pursuit of happiness.

[Xaqaria]

I'm of the opinion that the scientific method will eventually explain everything, but we haven't gotten quite that far yet. Then I'd say you lack a clear concept of what "everything" really means.

[Dreams4free]

Then I'd say you lack a clear concept of what "everything" really means. I think he is referring to everything that we essentially perceive. I don't personally believe that.. but I'm open to see how far we go.

[Licity]

Then I'd say you lack a clear concept of what "everything" really means. eve·ry·thing (ěv'rē-thĭng') pron. 1. 1. All things or all of a group of things. Is there some failure that is just inherent to human senses? Why can't things I figure out by observing all that is around me tell the whole story? Everyone I talk to seems all too ready to start bashing what humans can figure out with our own senses.

[DrunkenArse]

I'm of the opinion that the scientific method will eventually explain everything, but we haven't gotten quite that far yet. I'm not sure of the implications here but don't forget goedels incompleteness theorems... Any logical system powerfull enough to encompass arithematic will either be incomplete in the sense that there will be statements that are true within it but not provable or will contain contradictions. While science is not a logical system, I have the feeling that it will have to move in that direction as it progresses. Once we have a TOE, the rest will essentially be working out how other phenomenon emerge from its equations. This may well push science in the directions of mathematics. If there's any interest in this, I'll see what penrose has to say about it in his book. That would just be his opinion of course.

[davej]

It is possible that God doesn't exist, although I do believe in God and I highly doubt I will ever NOT believe in God. It is possible that atheism is the most accurate depiction of the Universe and spirituality is false. However, even though I recognize that this could be true (although I do not believe it to be so), I am not motivated to prove it to be so as I enjoy being a spiritual person and studying religions and enlightenment and living life guided ultimately by spiritual goals. As I ultimately motivated by my own happiness, it makes no difference to me as to whether or not we live in a Godless universe. I believe that we do so strongly that the possibility of Godlessness will never bother me. Thus I will never contemplate it seriously. In my life, there is no possibility about it... It is a fact that God exists.

[Dreams4free]

In my life, there is no possibility about it... It is a fact that God exists. Sigh...

[sephiroth clock]

Pascal's wager is a thinking man's sucker bet. You have delineated that you took the wager, and the fact that godlessness does not bother you. You have reduced living to basically a insurance plan that relieves you of philosophical tension with regards to meaning. You enjoy theosophy and being part of a bigger picture, as well as the perception of spiritual achievement, namely enlightenment. The only thing that troubles you is the other side of the coin, so to speak. Regardless you rather not bother in the pursuit of it, and let God explain your situation so you can go on enjoying what it is you do. Your situation is very common to your class, and it help's justify subject matter so that life doesn't have to be puzzle. I think what you fear, the most common universal condition of man, is the fact that life would not be enjoyable without God. Hopefully that doesn't restrict you in your pursuit of happiness. Well interesting. I dont agree with all of that. I wanted to make the distinction that Pascal came from an initial position of doubt, whereas I come from an initial position of Belief. I do not have any set beliefs. So Atheism is still an option! Its just that I can not see anytime in the future where Atheism would be more rational than belief in God. Not the most logical! Just the most rational, based on my experiences, and the way my brain processes information. But you were rational enough to realize that I can be oblivious and happy and that that is okay! To realize that I wouldnt have the free will to choose atheism over god. Rational enough to be okay with my happiness, even if I am blind to the truth. That is a beautiful rationalism!! Or did you want to sober me up with existential truths? Personally I prefer sober people to happy drunks. There is something so trivial, so fake at its essence about happy drunkenness. To continue the discssion- do you believe there is anything innately special about this universe? however you choose to define the word special.

[Licity]

Well interesting. I dont agree with all of that. I wanted to make the distinction that Pascal came from an initial position of doubt, whereas I come from an initial position of Belief. I do not have any set beliefs. So Atheism is still an option! Its just that I can not see anytime in the future where Atheism would be more rational than belief in God. Not the most logical! Just the most rational, based on my experiences, and the way my brain processes information. But you were rational enough to realize that I can be oblivious and happy and that that is okay! To realize that I wouldnt have the free will to choose atheism over god. Rational enough to be okay with my happiness, even if I am blind to the truth. That is a beautiful rationalism!! Or did you want to sober me up with existential truths? Personally I prefer sober people to happy drunks. There is something so trivial, so fake at its essence about happy drunkenness. To continue the discssion- do you believe there is anything innately special about this universe? however you choose to define the word special. This is where some of us will have to agree to disagree. You take the stance that you don't care whether you are right or wrong as long as you are happy, and I take the stance that there is no greater injustice than deliberate ignorance. Ignorance, after all, is bliss.

[sephiroth clock]

This is where some of us will have to agree to disagree. You take the stance that you don't care whether you are right or wrong as long as you are happy, and I take the stance that there is no greater injustice than deliberate ignorance. Ignorance, after all, is bliss. All I heard in that statement was, Justice and truth are what make me happy I am all in favor of truth, it is just that my current truth makes me happy. and I highly doubt that I will ever change my beliefs about certain things, because they are highly rational to me.

[DrunkenArse]

The whole assumption here is that truth and rationality are subjective. Musical taste is subjective. What tastes good is subjective. Are you seriously proposing that answers to questions like "is there a god?", "did evolution occur?" and similar questions are subjective? We would have to live in separate universes for this to be the case.

[Dreams4free]

To continue the discssion- do you believe there is anything innately special about this universe? however you choose to define the word special. I could elaborate on this for years, and have, but first clear the intentional ambiguity in the question so I can answer it more objectively. Until then my rationale for my answer has these preconditions: Special meaning: "adapted to or reserved for a particular purpose" Innate simply meaning: "from birth", which would imply the universe was, unless we define it as a instantaneous condition of being, therefore having infinite parturition, similar to a catholic house wife. The universe is uniquely itself. Unfortunately I have yet to seen any spiritual innateness with regards to theological purpose, which is probably what you have the most interest in. However theological purpose can be subjective, so I might not be picking up on things that you might otherwise deem theologically special. I am essentially talking about symbolism, what things represent. For a Catholic a candle may symbolize the frailness of life and burning intensity of the instantaneous now, however I see it's relative specialty as its practical usefulness; namely the light it gives. What I find the most unique about the universe is that our mind's has been unsuccessful in understanding it completely, therefore leaving us in a mysterious space. We try so desperately with mathematics, but as soon as we hit fundamental calculus we realize are how bounded we are by the space time continuum and how we are unable to measure uncountable matter, simply because we don't have the capacity with our tools. Life to me is a mystery, simple because I don't fully understand it.

[sephiroth clock]

The whole assumption here is that truth and rationality are subjective. Musical taste is subjective. What tastes good is subjective. Are you seriously proposing that answers to questions like "is there a god?", "did evolution occur?" and similar questions are subjective? We would have to live in separate universes for this to be the case. Who said truth was subjective?? Rationality on the other hand is Definitely Subjective!! Rationale- the fundamental reason or reasons serving to account for something. What makes sense to me wont necessarily make sense to you or anyone else. And reality? No one experiences reality! We only experience our perceptions of reality! So perception = reality. In this way reality IS subjective.