Pascal's Wager Argument

[anonymous66]

But you're presenting a false dichotomy. You're acting as if there are only 2 options - Atheism or Christianity. And you're only considering one interpretation of Christianity. It is entirely possible for someone to believe as you do about this one form of Christianity and yet not consider himself to be an atheist. And not to become (as you admit about yourself) "tactless and undiplomatic".

So you agree there are many options: Yahve, Odin, Zeus, Mithra, Osiris...any of the thousand of gods, and they are all equally tenable beliefs, right?

Equally tenable? I don't know about that. If I was interested in religion (I'm not) then I suppose I would spend some time learning about the various religions and then try to come up with a way to rate them.

[Count Lucanor]

But you're presenting a false dichotomy. You're acting as if there are only 2 options - Atheism or Christianity. And you're only considering one interpretation of Christianity. It is entirely possible for someone to believe as you do about this one form of Christianity and yet not consider himself to be an atheist. And not to become (as you admit about yourself) "tactless and undiplomatic".

So you agree there are many options: Yahve, Odin, Zeus, Mithra, Osiris...any of the thousand of gods, and they are all equally tenable beliefs, right?

Equally tenable? I don't know about that. If I was interested in religion (I'm not) then I suppose I would spend some time learning about the various religions and then try to come up with a way to rate them.

If you don't know, can't you just admit that there are many options? They are all equally open to inquiry and they all deserve the same treatment, right? Otherwise it seems as if you were saying: "if it doesn't satisfy my inquiries, I will not admit this belief", but how does that approach differ from one of an atheist?

[anonymous66]

But you're presenting a false dichotomy. You're acting as if there are only 2 options - Atheism or Christianity. And you're only considering one interpretation of Christianity. It is entirely possible for someone to believe as you do about this one form of Christianity and yet not consider himself to be an atheist. And not to become (as you admit about yourself) "tactless and undiplomatic".

So you agree there are many options: Yahve, Odin, Zeus, Mithra, Osiris...any of the thousand of gods, and they are all equally tenable beliefs, right?

Equally tenable? I don't know about that. If I was interested in religion (I'm not) then I suppose I would spend some time learning about the various religions and then try to come up with a way to rate them.

If you don't know, can't you just admit that there are many options? They are all equally open to inquiry and they all deserve the same treatment, right? Otherwise it seems as if you were saying: "if it doesn't satisfy my inquiries, I will not admit this belief", but how does that approach differ from one of an atheist?

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "the approach of the atheist?" My criticism was over what appeared to me to be a false-dichotomy (the assertion that there are only 2 possibilities - superstitious religious belief or atheism).

[Count Lucanor]

So you agree there are many options: Yahve, Odin, Zeus, Mithra, Osiris...any of the thousand of gods, and they are all equally tenable beliefs, right?

Equally tenable? I don't know about that. If I was interested in religion (I'm not) then I suppose I would spend some time learning about the various religions and then try to come up with a way to rate them.

If you don't know, can't you just admit that there are many options? They are all equally open to inquiry and they all deserve the same treatment, right? Otherwise it seems as if you were saying: "if it doesn't satisfy my inquiries, I will not admit this belief", but how does that approach differ from one of an atheist?

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "the approach of the atheist?" My criticism was over what appeared to me to be a false-dichotomy (the assertion that there are only 2 possibilities - superstitious religious belief or atheism).

An atheist, or at least a typical atheist, had spent some time learning about the claims of some number of religions, as well as claims from philosophy and science, and came up with a rating, which justifies his/her disbelief in particular religious claims about supernatural entities and events. You then endorsed this approach when I asked you to consider the many religions available. So in what sense the atheist is creating a false-dichotomy? If your skeptic approach towards other religions allows you to rule all of them out, aren't you creating a dichotomy, too?

[anonymous66]

Equally tenable? I don't know about that. If I was interested in religion (I'm not) then I suppose I would spend some time learning about the various religions and then try to come up with a way to rate them.

If you don't know, can't you just admit that there are many options? They are all equally open to inquiry and they all deserve the same treatment, right? Otherwise it seems as if you were saying: "if it doesn't satisfy my inquiries, I will not admit this belief", but how does that approach differ from one of an atheist?

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "the approach of the atheist?" My criticism was over what appeared to me to be a false-dichotomy (the assertion that there are only 2 possibilities - superstitious religious belief or atheism).

An atheist, or at least a typical atheist, had spent some time learning about the claims of some number of religions, as well as claims from philosophy and science, and came up with a rating, which justifies his/her disbelief in particular religious claims about supernatural entities and events. You then endorsed this approach when I asked you to consider the many religions available. So in what sense the atheist is creating a false-dichotomy? If your skeptic approach towards other religions allows you to rule all of them out, aren't you creating a dichotomy, too?

You still haven't addressed the false dichotomy I brought up. Is it the case that there are only 2 possibilities - superstitious religious belief or atheism?

[anonymous66]

Equally tenable? I don't know about that. If I was interested in religion (I'm not) then I suppose I would spend some time learning about the various religions and then try to come up with a way to rate them.

If you don't know, can't you just admit that there are many options? They are all equally open to inquiry and they all deserve the same treatment, right? Otherwise it seems as if you were saying: "if it doesn't satisfy my inquiries, I will not admit this belief", but how does that approach differ from one of an atheist?

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "the approach of the atheist?" My criticism was over what appeared to me to be a false-dichotomy (the assertion that there are only 2 possibilities - superstitious religious belief or atheism).

If your skeptic approach towards other religions allows you to rule all of them out, aren't you creating a dichotomy, too?

You've missed my point completely. And I haven't taken the time to "rule them all out" - I don't care enough to do so. I'm not creating a false dichotomy because I understand that there are other possibilities besides atheism or superstitious religious belief. For example, I acknowledge the existence of deism. I acknowledge the fact that there are are people who reject superstitious religious belief and yet who are not atheists - that's been my point all along.

[Sy Borg]

The most compelling argument for atheism is the utter, utter silliness of superstitious religious belief. There's precious little difference between disbelieving Abrahamic myths and disbelieving myths of Santa Claus. There's shouldn't even be a name for it. It's simply a refusal to believe in nonsense just because some people vouch for it.

There are many people who don't buy into superstitious religious belief and yet are not atheists. Again a false dichotomy - you're acting as if there are only 2 options - superstitious religious belief or atheism.

Not at all. It's the incoherence of your worldview that created a false dichotomy in your mind. Theists, ie. those who believe that Iron Age Abrahamic mythology is true, are inherently superstitious by definition. There are two broad angles - realism and superstition - although how heavily theists lean into the superstition will obviously vary, which appeared to be your point. However, there are many options regarding reality that are not measured against Abrahamic mythology. Last time I analysed the possibilities, I came up with eleven of them. I presume you didn't read that.

Okay - so we both agree that there are more possibilities than just atheism or superstitious religious belief. Deism comes to mind as a counterexample.

Here are the possibilities (copied and pasted with additions). Feel free to add.

1. There is no deity. The universe is self-organising, though perhaps some entities will evolve/develop in the far future that we today would perceive as godlike. [Spinozan, although he said the universe was God]

2. Deities are subjectively real, but not [ontologically]. Belief in the agency of nature was passed down thousands of generations of human ancestors, who believed that powerful natural entities had agency. Thus, deities are subjectively real as a potential in our brain configuration, inherited from a long line of superstitious ancestors, but they don't exist ontologically.

3. There are synergies in reality, as described in the Tao, Buddhism and other schemas. These, as per #2, might be be interpreted as a deity or deities.

4. The Sun has a kind of consciousness that could be interpreted as a deity. We are increasingly finding organisation in the Sun's structure. It might produce a different kind of consciousness to anything we imagined.

5. The Earth has a kind of consciousness that could be interpreted as a deity. After all, we are only a small part of Earth, so it's logically greater, and we are a system within the Earth's system. Again, maybe there's complex organisation in our planet that we don't understand.

6. The entire universe is conscious to some extent, and this is interpreted as a deity or deities.

7. The spirits of the dead still exist in another dimension/realm that could be interpreted as a deity or deities. There have been many hard-to-explain anecdotal incidents, but nothing conclusive. Many indigenous people believed this.

8. Multiple deities actually exist, and they might be interpreted in different ways. Hindus and many indigenous groups have their own particular polytheistic schemas. Even the Romans and Greeks, though I don't think they took them entirely seriously.

9. There is one supreme deity that created the universe and let it go. [the deism you mentioned]

10. There is one supreme interventionist deity that created everything. [could be theist or panentheist]

11. The multiverse exists and this is interpreted as a deist creator.

[anonymous66]

There are many people who don't buy into superstitious religious belief and yet are not atheists. Again a false dichotomy - you're acting as if there are only 2 options - superstitious religious belief or atheism.

Not at all. It's the incoherence of your worldview that created a false dichotomy in your mind. Theists, ie. those who believe that Iron Age Abrahamic mythology is true, are inherently superstitious by definition. There are two broad angles - realism and superstition - although how heavily theists lean into the superstition will obviously vary, which appeared to be your point. However, there are many options regarding reality that are not measured against Abrahamic mythology. Last time I analysed the possibilities, I came up with eleven of them. I presume you didn't read that.

Okay - so we both agree that there are more possibilities than just atheism or superstitious religious belief. Deism comes to mind as a counterexample.

Here are the possibilities (copied and pasted with additions). Feel free to add.

1. There is no deity. The universe is self-organising, though perhaps some entities will evolve/develop in the far future that we today would perceive as godlike. [Spinozan, although he said the universe was God]

2. Deities are subjectively real, but not [ontologically]. Belief in the agency of nature was passed down thousands of generations of human ancestors, who believed that powerful natural entities had agency. Thus, deities are subjectively real as a potential in our brain configuration, inherited from a long line of superstitious ancestors, but they don't exist ontologically.

3. There are synergies in reality, as described in the Tao, Buddhism and other schemas. These, as per #2, might be be interpreted as a deity or deities.

4. The Sun has a kind of consciousness that could be interpreted as a deity. We are increasingly finding organisation in the Sun's structure. It might produce a different kind of consciousness to anything we imagined.

5. The Earth has a kind of consciousness that could be interpreted as a deity. After all, we are only a small part of Earth, so it's logically greater, and we are a system within the Earth's system. Again, maybe there's complex organisation in our planet that we don't understand.

6. The entire universe is conscious to some extent, and this is interpreted as a deity or deities.

7. The spirits of the dead still exist in another dimension/realm that could be interpreted as a deity or deities. There have been many hard-to-explain anecdotal incidents, but nothing conclusive. Many indigenous people believed this.

8. Multiple deities actually exist, and they might be interpreted in different ways. Hindus and many indigenous groups have their own particular polytheistic schemas. Even the Romans and Greeks, though I don't think they took them entirely seriously.

9. There is one supreme deity that created the universe and let it go. [the deism you mentioned]

10. There is one supreme interventionist deity that created everything. [could be theist or panentheist]

11. The multiverse exists and this is interpreted as a deist creator.

That looks like a pretty comprehensive list. I'm sorry I didn't see it earlier.

[Sy Borg]

Not at all. It's the incoherence of your worldview that created a false dichotomy in your mind. Theists, ie. those who believe that Iron Age Abrahamic mythology is true, are inherently superstitious by definition. There are two broad angles - realism and superstition - although how heavily theists lean into the superstition will obviously vary, which appeared to be your point. However, there are many options regarding reality that are not measured against Abrahamic mythology. Last time I analysed the possibilities, I came up with eleven of them. I presume you didn't read that.

Okay - so we both agree that there are more possibilities than just atheism or superstitious religious belief. Deism comes to mind as a counterexample.

Here are the possibilities (copied and pasted with additions). Feel free to add.

1. There is no deity. The universe is self-organising, though perhaps some entities will evolve/develop in the far future that we today would perceive as godlike. [Spinozan, although he said the universe was God]

2. Deities are subjectively real, but not [ontologically]. Belief in the agency of nature was passed down thousands of generations of human ancestors, who believed that powerful natural entities had agency. Thus, deities are subjectively real as a potential in our brain configuration, inherited from a long line of superstitious ancestors, but they don't exist ontologically.

3. There are synergies in reality, as described in the Tao, Buddhism and other schemas. These, as per #2, might be be interpreted as a deity or deities.

4. The Sun has a kind of consciousness that could be interpreted as a deity. We are increasingly finding organisation in the Sun's structure. It might produce a different kind of consciousness to anything we imagined.

5. The Earth has a kind of consciousness that could be interpreted as a deity. After all, we are only a small part of Earth, so it's logically greater, and we are a system within the Earth's system. Again, maybe there's complex organisation in our planet that we don't understand.

6. The entire universe is conscious to some extent, and this is interpreted as a deity or deities.

7. The spirits of the dead still exist in another dimension/realm that could be interpreted as a deity or deities. There have been many hard-to-explain anecdotal incidents, but nothing conclusive. Many indigenous people believed this.

8. Multiple deities actually exist, and they might be interpreted in different ways. Hindus and many indigenous groups have their own particular polytheistic schemas. Even the Romans and Greeks, though I don't think they took them entirely seriously.

9. There is one supreme deity that created the universe and let it go. [the deism you mentioned]

10. There is one supreme interventionist deity that created everything. [could be theist or panentheist]

11. The multiverse exists and this is interpreted as a deist creator.

That looks like a pretty comprehensive list. I'm sorry I didn't see it earlier.

It was unreasonable of me to expect you to have seen it in this labyrinth. Thanks for giving me the chance to revisit it, because it strikes me as the nitty-gritty of many debates.

[JackDaydream]

There are many people who don't buy into superstitious religious belief and yet are not atheists. Again a false dichotomy - you're acting as if there are only 2 options - superstitious religious belief or atheism.

Not at all. It's the incoherence of your worldview that created a false dichotomy in your mind. Theists, ie. those who believe that Iron Age Abrahamic mythology is true, are inherently superstitious by definition. There are two broad angles - realism and superstition - although how heavily theists lean into the superstition will obviously vary, which appeared to be your point. However, there are many options regarding reality that are not measured against Abrahamic mythology. Last time I analysed the possibilities, I came up with eleven of them. I presume you didn't read that.

Okay - so we both agree that there are more possibilities than just atheism or superstitious religious belief. Deism comes to mind as a counterexample.

Here are the possibilities (copied and pasted with additions). Feel free to add.

1. There is no deity. The universe is self-organising, though perhaps some entities will evolve/develop in the far future that we today would perceive as godlike. [Spinozan, although he said the universe was God]

2. Deities are subjectively real, but not [ontologically]. Belief in the agency of nature was passed down thousands of generations of human ancestors, who believed that powerful natural entities had agency. Thus, deities are subjectively real as a potential in our brain configuration, inherited from a long line of superstitious ancestors, but they don't exist ontologically.

3. There are synergies in reality, as described in the Tao, Buddhism and other schemas. These, as per #2, might be be interpreted as a deity or deities.

4. The Sun has a kind of consciousness that could be interpreted as a deity. We are increasingly finding organisation in the Sun's structure. It might produce a different kind of consciousness to anything we imagined.

5. The Earth has a kind of consciousness that could be interpreted as a deity. After all, we are only a small part of Earth, so it's logically greater, and we are a system within the Earth's system. Again, maybe there's complex organisation in our planet that we don't understand.

6. The entire universe is conscious to some extent, and this is interpreted as a deity or deities.

7. The spirits of the dead still exist in another dimension/realm that could be interpreted as a deity or deities. There have been many hard-to-explain anecdotal incidents, but nothing conclusive. Many indigenous people believed this.

8. Multiple deities actually exist, and they might be interpreted in different ways. Hindus and many indigenous groups have their own particular polytheistic schemas. Even the Romans and Greeks, though I don't think they took them entirely seriously.

9. There is one supreme deity that created the universe and let it go. [the deism you mentioned]

10. There is one supreme interventionist deity that created everything. [could be theist or panentheist]

11. The multiverse exists and this is interpreted as a deist creator.

I hadn't been reading this particular thread recently but found the post and discussion on different ideas of deities interesting. The one which I may add is the idea of the oversoul as being linked to a wider source, and this may relate to the idea of Plotinus's 'the one.' It would also relate to the understanding of the nature of the divine in theosophy and in esoteric systems of philosophy, both Eastern and Western. However, in such a view it is not necessary that one believes in the existence of God, making the idea of Pascal's wager as not necessary, or potentially redundant.

[Sy Borg]

When it comes to "oversouls", that could be humanity, life, the Earth, the Sun, the Milky Way, the Local group, the Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea, or the universe as a whole. It's generally assumed that it's universal but, really, any of the above layers could seem to be universal. After all, everything we know that's ever happened in history happened on Sagan's 'pale blue dot'.

[Count Lucanor]

If you don't know, can't you just admit that there are many options? They are all equally open to inquiry and they all deserve the same treatment, right? Otherwise it seems as if you were saying: "if it doesn't satisfy my inquiries, I will not admit this belief", but how does that approach differ from one of an atheist?

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "the approach of the atheist?" My criticism was over what appeared to me to be a false-dichotomy (the assertion that there are only 2 possibilities - superstitious religious belief or atheism).

An atheist, or at least a typical atheist, had spent some time learning about the claims of some number of religions, as well as claims from philosophy and science, and came up with a rating, which justifies his/her disbelief in particular religious claims about supernatural entities and events. You then endorsed this approach when I asked you to consider the many religions available. So in what sense the atheist is creating a false-dichotomy? If your skeptic approach towards other religions allows you to rule all of them out, aren't you creating a dichotomy, too?

You still haven't addressed the false dichotomy I brought up. Is it the case that there are only 2 possibilities - superstitious religious belief or atheism?

Didn't I just address it? Whoever takes a definite position on a subject, rules out any other position on the subject. You would call that a dichotomy: the stance taken and the stances ruled out. In the case of evaluating particular religious claims about supernatural entities and events, a person takes a stance, making them either endorsers or opponents of such claims, which is perfectly natural and valid. Arriving to such positions is what defines someone as an atheist or a theist. There's nothing wrong with this, but one also might choose not to have a definite position on a subject, such as religious claims, which automatically means not ruling out any position, necessarily opening up the possibility of belief in any religious claim, from any religion. That seemed to be your initial approach when claiming a dichotomy would be false, however when I brought it up, you reacted saying that you would need to study the claims of each religion to take a stance, doing actually what you criticize in atheists.

[Count Lucanor]

For example, I acknowledge the existence of deism.

There are many options among deists, and some will endorse supernaturalism.

[anonymous66]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "the approach of the atheist?" My criticism was over what appeared to me to be a false-dichotomy (the assertion that there are only 2 possibilities - superstitious religious belief or atheism).

An atheist, or at least a typical atheist, had spent some time learning about the claims of some number of religions, as well as claims from philosophy and science, and came up with a rating, which justifies his/her disbelief in particular religious claims about supernatural entities and events. You then endorsed this approach when I asked you to consider the many religions available. So in what sense the atheist is creating a false-dichotomy? If your skeptic approach towards other religions allows you to rule all of them out, aren't you creating a dichotomy, too?

You still haven't addressed the false dichotomy I brought up. Is it the case that there are only 2 possibilities - superstitious religious belief or atheism?

Didn't I just address it? Whoever takes a definite position on a subject, rules out any other position on the subject. You would call that a dichotomy: the stance taken and the stances ruled out. In the case of evaluating particular religious claims about supernatural entities and events, a person takes a stance, making them either endorsers or opponents of such claims, which is perfectly natural and valid. Arriving to such positions is what defines someone as an atheist or a theist. There's nothing wrong with this, but one also might choose not to have a definite position on a subject, such as religious claims, which automatically means not ruling out any position, necessarily opening up the possibility of belief in any religious claim, from any religion. That seemed to be your initial approach when claiming a dichotomy would be false, however when I brought it up, you reacted saying that you would need to study the claims of each religion to take a stance, doing actually what you criticize in atheists.

Taking a position is not an example of a false dichotomy.
Can we agree on a definition of a false dichotomy?
Here's what I have in mind.... Quote "A false dichotomy is typically used in an argument to force your opponent into an extreme position -- by making the assumption that there are only two positions. Examples: "If you want better public schools, you have to raise taxes. Unquote.
What i was criticising is the propensity of some atheists to act as if there are only 2 positions- atheism or superstitious religious beliefs. That is a classic example of a false dichotomy because it insists that there are only 2 positions.

[Sy Borg]

Examples: "If you want better public schools, you have to raise taxes. Unquote.
What i was criticising is the propensity of some atheists to act as if there are only 2 positions- atheism or superstitious religious beliefs. That is a classic example of a false dichotomy because it insists that there are only 2 positions.

I see that as grouping. Consider the list of options above. Various of them can be roughly grouped as theism and atheism, just as mice and cats are part of the larger mammal group.

The trouble with grouping is that it's not precise, and is suitable for some purposes and not others. For example, mice and cats are both mammals,
so there are many common aspects of their care, as opposed to care for birds or reptiles. But that commonality does not mean it's a good idea to put the two species together in a room.

Some of the most bitter arguments have been between parties trying to determine the nuances of a roughly shared position. A fight between lovers or family members can be more bitter than any other. Consider the rift between Israelites and Palestinians. Israelites sniped fiercely at Canaanites in the Old Testament, yet they borrowed a range of attributes from the Canaanite deity, Baal, to attribute to their own deity, Yahweh.