Let's Think, January 12, 2013

Pascal's Wager

Is it Safer to Bet on God than Not?

By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
Someone who offers Pascal’s Wager is arguing that to believe in God is a better bet than not believing in God. If you believe and God exists, you’ll go to heaven and avoid hell; if you believe and are wrong, you lose nothing. If you don’t believe in God and God does exist, you’ll lose heaven and go to hell; if you’re right, then you gain nothing. There are a lot of problems with this argument.
The first problem lies in the implicit yet unstated assumption that we already know which god we should believe in. That assumption, however, is not necessary to the argument, and thus the argument itself does not explain which religion a person should follow. This can be described as the “avoiding the wrong hell” dilemma. If you happen to follow the right religion, you may indeed “go to heaven and avoid hell.” However, if you choose the wrong religion, you’ll still go to hell.
The thing missed by so many who use this argument is that you cannot “bet” on the general concept of “theism.” You have to pick specific doctrines. Theism is just a broad construct which includes all possible god-beliefs and, as such, does not exist absent specific theologies. If you are going to really believe in a god, you have to believe in something — which means picking something. If you pick nothing, then your “belief” is literally empty and you remain an atheist. So, a person who picks risks picking the wrong god and avoiding the wrong hell.
A second problem is that it isn’t actually true that the person who bets loses nothing. If a person bets on the wrong god, then the True God (tm) just might punish them for their foolish behavior. What’s more, the True God (tm) might not mind that people don’t bother believing in it when they use rational reasons — thus, not picking at all might be the safest bet. You just cannot know.
Also, some choices do indeed come with large risks. Many have died because they trusted in prayer rather than medicine. Others have perished due to the handling of poisonous snakes and the drinking of lethal liquids because Jesus said they would be able to do so without harm. Thus, the choice of pseudoscientific and mystical beliefs can carry very negative consequences.
A third problem is the unstated premise that the two choices presented are equally likely. It is only when two choices are equal in probability that it makes sense to go with the allegedly “safe bet.” However, if the choice of a god is revealed to be a great deal less likely than the choice of no god, then god ceases to be the “safe bet.” Or, if both are equally likely, then neither is actually a “safe bet.”
One final problem is the conclusion of the argument, where a person decides to believe in a god because it is the choice that offers the most benefits and least dangers. However, this requires that the god in question not mind that you believe in it merely in order to gain entrance to heaven and/or to avoid punishment in hell.
But this means that this god isn’t actually a just or fair god, since a person’s eternal fate is not being decided upon based on their actions, but merely on their decision to make a pragmatic and selfish choice. I don’t know about you, but that certainly isn’t the sort of god I would ever consider worshipping.

Let's Think....

“Gods are all in the mind. They are the imaginations of wishful thinkers who do not think enough because they have not learned enough. In short, gods exist only inside the head, and not outside of it.” Terence Meaden. Atheistweb 17 February 2008

Let's Think....

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Steven Weinberg American theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate in Physics

Let's Think.... Wednesday 12/12/2012

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

(Marcus Aurelius, 

Born: April 26, 121 AD, Rome

Died: March 17, 180 AD, Vienna)

Let's Think....

It has been a mission of mine for many years now to isolate and ridicule superstition and primitive mythology that masquerades as genuine science, to the detriment of all around. My usual target is religion.

Arguing evolution with creationists has been likened to hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope. This is getting tedious for now, and in the interests of equal opportunity scepticism I will turn my jaded eye to the world of New Age alternative healing methods, and just how much of a holy racket these are too.

Creationism and religion seem to hold themselves above science, in the misguided view that science is fallible due to it’s rejection of the supernatural. Religionists hold that their views transcend the human mind and because of their divine origins, are beyond analysis.

One way of getting around the pesky laws of physics – simply invalidate the scientific laws that invalidate your own viewpoint. However, when it comes to pseudo-science such as the esoteric New Age alternative therapies, they simply lie and claim false science to back up their claims.

This is disingenuous to the extreme, and the fact remains that the large majority of these so-called therapies have no positive medical effect on an organism.

Reiki Healing.

Basic tenets – There is a universal and inexhaustible spiritual “energy” which can be used for healing purposes.  Through an attunement process carried out by a Reiki Master, any person can gain access to this “energy”. This “energy” will flow through the Reiki Master’s hands when he/she places his/her hands near the patient.

This “energy” has human-like intelligence. As this “energy” is intelligent, there is no need for diagnosis. This “energy” will automatically judge the disease and will heal the patient.

That’s right. A smart-android type of healing app that does not even need a diagnosis to heal the affected area. Whoa. Back up there. All I have to do is lie down and let some hippy move their hands all over me, and presto! The magic Jedi-energy will locate, analyse, diagnose and effect remedial therapeutic action all on its own!

Simply put, if this is true, there would be no need for the entire medical or pharmaceutical industry as a whole. It has only been around since 1922, having been invented by a Japanese gentleman named Usui Mikao. So it is not traditional ancient oriental medicine, it is new pseudoscience aimed at emptying people’s wallets whilst pandering to their belief that anything ancient must be wise. Wrong on all counts.

As a pointer to its efficacy, it is claimed that the healer does not have to be in the same room, city, or even continent as the sufferer. Useful for treating people without even having to get off your arse to do so! But although the healing power is so pervasive that it auto heals with no knowledge of the ailment or patient, without any contact at all, fortunately payment can be done via sending your credit card number or cheque!

Really, if anyone needs alerting that this is pure and unadulterated bovine stool, you probably deserve it.

(Matthew Bailey)

Let's Think....

I don't believe in 2500 gods, you don't in 2499, so we are very close to "what we believe" don't you think?