|
it stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
Pascal's Wager
#5346369 - 02/27/06 05:46 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
"God is, or He is not. But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up...Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is." --Blaise Pascal, Thoughts
William James has described Pascal's Wager "a last desperate snatch at a weapon against the hardness of the unbelieving heart," and commented that "if we were to place ourselves in the place of the Deity, we should probably take particular pleasure in cutting off believers of this pattern from their infinite reward." Such crude reasoning on the part of Pascal can most likely be attributed to uncertainty regarding his religious beliefs, which he adopted after a comatose "vision." In the history of philosophy, Pascal's Wager can be viewed as the last dying breath of a blind mysticism which faced violent scrutiny and skepticism less than half a century later during the Age of Enlightenment.
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
|
I never was a very "smart" gambler...
I once charted the wager out in text. 
I've been here too long... geez.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Boom
just a tester

Registered: 06/16/04
Posts: 11,252
Loc: Cypress Creek
|
|
I always liked that wager
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
|
> God is, or He is not.
I disagree with the very first statement of the wager.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Seuss]
#5348481 - 02/28/06 07:49 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > God is, or He is not.
I disagree with the very first statement of the wager.
Bad pronoun?
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
psyka
Praetorian


Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 1,652
|
|
lol, what a silly wager.
I believe the Gods rule the Universe, so I win Zeus 4 lyfe!
"faced violent scrutiny and skepticism less than half a century later during the Age of Enlightenment." LOL
I like how you see scrutiny and scepticism as violent.
-------------------- As the life of a candle, my wick will burn out. But, the fire of my mind shall beam into infinite.

|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5348669 - 02/28/06 09:18 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> Bad pronoun?
Nope, viewing "God" in terms of duality... exist or not exist...
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
it stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: psyka]
#5348939 - 02/28/06 11:22 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psyka said: I like how you see scrutiny and scepticism as violent.
I mean violent as in "vigorous," not in the sense of physical harm.
|
it stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Boom]
#5348945 - 02/28/06 11:25 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Booooom said: I always liked that wager
Oh.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
I always thought it was bullshit how people believed in God "just in case." In fact, how is that even belief? It's nothing more than fear. My belief is God comes completely from direct experience, and I would expect nothing less of others. That is why I'm not bothered by those who don't believe in God, since they simply lack the experience to know otherwise.
--------------------
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Silversoul]
#5349518 - 02/28/06 01:52 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I always thought it was bullshit how people believed in God "just in case." In fact, how is that even belief? It's nothing more than fear.
And such a "God" by which most people have feared is nothing short of the typical old, white bearded man in the sky, with occasional mood swings and amnesia which causes him to forget he has miracles to perform.
My belief is God comes completely from direct experience, and I would expect nothing less of others. That is why I'm not bothered by those who don't believe in God, since they simply lack the experience to know otherwise.
How are you defining "God"? Surely, you are not referring to the kind of god mentioned above. If you are defining it as the archetypal template in which heightened perspective and suffering-transcendent modes of cognition is sustained, then it would behoove you to respect the fact that this is achievable objectively, and is not exclusive to your concepts of God nor experiences of vague mysticism.
Folks, do not let yourself be fooled by such blind evils of mysticism. The result of such mystic thinking is that it poisons certainty - which is directly contingent upon the lack of reference to reality, i.e., arbitrary vagueness.
As an example of such poisonings:
Quote:
When such a man considers a goal or desire he wants to achieve, the first question in his mind is: "Can I do it?" - not: "What is required to do it?" His question means: "Do I have the innate ability?" For example: "I want to be a composer more than anything else on earth, but I have no idea of how it's done. Do I have that mysterious gift which will do it for me, somehow?" He has never heard of a premise such as the primacy of consciousness, but that is the premise moving him as he embarks on a hopeless search through the dark labyrinth of his consciousness [hopeless, because without reference to existence, nothing can be learned about one's consciousness].
If he does not give up his desire right then, he stumbles uncertainly to attempt to achieve it. Any small success augments his anxiety: he does not know what caused it and whether he can repeat it. Any small failure is a crushing blow: he takes it as proof that he lacks the mystic endowment. When he makes a mistake, he does not ask himself: "What do I need to learn? - he asks "What's wrong with me?" He waits for an automatic and omnipotent inspiration, which never comes. He spends years on a cheerless struggle, with his eyes focused inward, on the growing, leering monster of self-doubt, while existence drifts by, unseen, on the periphery of his mental vision. Eventually, he gives up. Philosophy: Who needs it?
Substitute for "composer" the archetypal template mentioned above, the same pattern applies.
And with that, I leave you folks, once more, with the final paragraphs of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology:
Quote:
. . . the satisfaction of every need of a living organism requires an act of processing by that organism, be it the need of air, of food or of knowledge.
No one would argue [at least, not yet] that since man's body has to process the food he eats, no objective rules of proper nutrition can ever be discovered - that "true nutrition" has to consist of absorbing some ineffable substance without the participation of a digestive system, but since man is incapable of "true feeding," nutrition is a subjective matter open to his whim, and it is merely a social convention that forbids him to eat poisonous mushrooms.
No one would argue that since nature does not tell man automatically what to eat - as it does not tell him automatically how to form concepts - he should abandon the illusion that there is a right or wrong way of eating [or he should revert to the safety of the time when he did not have to "trust" objective evidence, but could rely on dietary laws prescribed by a supernatural power]. . . .
No one would argue that man eats bread rather than stones purely as a matter of "convenience."
It is time to grant to man's consciousness the same cognitive respect one grants to his body - i.e., the same objectivity.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Seuss]
#5349672 - 02/28/06 02:21 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > God is, or He is not.
I disagree with the very first statement of the wager.
Quote:
> Bad pronoun?
Nope, viewing "God" in terms of duality... exist or not exist...
I'm puzzled by your response Seuss. It seems to me that existence/non-existence is not a duality. Existence is a unity, and "non-existence" is simply a word to denote something that is not real. "Unicorns do not exist." In so far as non-extant 'things' have reality in the mind, they fall into the category of existence.
Those things which are exist; those things which are not do not exist, though these 'non-extant' things may exist as mental reality in the mind that imagines them.
As a hard actuality, apart from any mind's apprehension, it seems to me that Pascal's first premise, "God is, or He is not", is a self evident proposition.
To deny a proposition with the form *** A or ~A, but not both *** is ,as far as I know, beyond the capability of any language.
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: shroomydan]
#5349749 - 02/28/06 02:35 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
and "non-existence" is simply a word to denote something that is not real.
It denotes it, and by doing so, differentiates it from something that is real, thus, you've got a duality.
"All creatures have been drawn from nothingness, and this is why their origin is nothingness. ... All the creatures cannot express God. For they are not receptive of what God is. God the ineffable one has no name. The divine one is a negation of negations and a denial of denials.
God is nothing. No thing. God is nothingness; and yet God is something. God is neither this thing nor that thing that we can express. God is a being beyond all being; God is a beingless being. ... God is not found in the soul by adding anything, but by a process of subtraction." - Meister Eckhart
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
|
"Martians are, or Martians are not."
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: shroomydan]
#5352172 - 03/01/06 03:46 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> I'm puzzled by your response Seuss.
It is difficult for me to express the concept. In general, people tend to think of "God" in terms of "man". Example, "Could God create a rock so heavy that He could not lift it?" This is an extension of people tending to create "God" in our own image. Of course, with an ego, what else would one expect? Our reality is nothing more than a pale shadow of what can be experienced. To constrain "God" to our reality, or to terms that our minds can understand logically, belittles the true nature of being.
> To deny a proposition with the form *** A or ~A, but not both *** is ,as far as I know, beyond the capability of any language.
Exactly!
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Seuss]
#5352532 - 03/01/06 07:28 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Why don't you take your rejection of the anthropomorphic God any further? Why not reject the concept of a "singularity" for the egocentric projection that it is?
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5353138 - 03/01/06 10:54 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
What are you referring to as being the singularity in this context, out of curiosity?
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
#5353292 - 03/01/06 11:51 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
What do you think "singularity" refers to, in the context of my post?
Not to be a dick, but it's plain English.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5353324 - 03/01/06 12:01 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I understand what the word means, but are you referring to the idea of a singularity creating the universe/God, or simply the idea of a singularity at any point temporally?
If you're referring to the latter, then are you suggesting that time is cyclical, or are you merely reaffirming the law of causality and dependent arising?
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
#5356519 - 03/02/06 07:39 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
The former, obviously.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
|