RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to Community Chat:Religion

18:27, 28th March 2024 (GMT+0)

Atheism vs. Theism.

Posted by HeathFor group 0
Heath
GM, 2471 posts
Affiliation: LDS
Fri 17 Mar 2006
at 17:32
  • msg #1

Atheism vs. Theism

Thought I'd open this up...perhaps with Pascal's Wager, if you want to discuss it:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

This has been an argument of mine; never knew it was actually a philosophical development.  Darn that Pascal for stealing my theory!!!  :)
Quixotic
player, 120 posts
Reviving long dead topics
If only briefly...
Fri 17 Mar 2006
at 19:27
  • msg #2

Re: Atheism vs. Theism

I found the last bit of the article about Buddhism interesting.

I remember having a conversation once along the same lines.  I felt that even if God didn't exist, I'd want to be Christian.  Many of the Christian's I was having the conversation with didn't agree.

As far as Pascal's Wager, I think I'd fall into the response category of saying that it isn't real belief.  Deciding to become be a Christian outwardly doesn't mean there's been an inward conversion.

Of course, someone who followed Pascal's Wager to a church, might get exposed to enough Truth to end up being truly converted.

Quixotic
Heath
GM, 2472 posts
Affiliation: LDS
Fri 17 Mar 2006
at 19:49
  • msg #3

Re: Atheism vs. Theism

Quixotic:
As far as Pascal's Wager, I think I'd fall into the response category of saying that it isn't real belief.  Deciding to become be a Christian outwardly doesn't mean there's been an inward conversion.

But I think the point is not "belief," but "hope."  You can hope for it...and what is faith?  Paul said it is "hope."
psychojosh13
player, 260 posts
agnostic
previously Jewish
Fri 17 Mar 2006
at 19:56
  • msg #4

Re: Atheism vs. Theism

Excellent article.  I especially liked this bit:

Wikipedia:
The wager does not account for the possibility that there is a God (or gods) who, rather than behaving as stated in certain parts of the Bible, instead rewards skepticism and punishes blind faith, or rewards honest reasoning and punishes feigned faith, or does not punish belief or disbelief at all.

Heath
GM, 2473 posts
Affiliation: LDS
Fri 17 Mar 2006
at 19:56
  • msg #5

Re: Atheism vs. Theism

Quix: I agree with you, though, and the criticisms, especcially since Pascal assumed only one Dogma, the heaven and hell dichotomy adopted by the Roman Catholic Church.

The way I used this point mirrored the Buddhism idea.

In other words, religious belief costs you nothing, but could potentially gain you eternal life.  Even if there is no God, religion gives you the "hope" to help you endure life and teaches you to act in a good way.  Therefore, regardless, religion and God are good things to belief in and follow.  (And let's not get nitpicky about crazy zealots who distort their religion and do bad.)
This message was last edited by the GM at 19:56, Fri 17 Mar 2006.
Heath
GM, 2474 posts
Affiliation: LDS
Fri 17 Mar 2006
at 20:09
  • msg #6

Re: Atheism vs. Theism

The wikipedia article may not do it justice.  It is important to note that Pascal called it a "wager" because no one can prove God exists, so we must all wager our belief for or against His existence.

Pascal:
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... But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

He actually discussed that not believing in God if God exists will lead to misery, or in other words, a finite reward.  So he said that believing in God can lead to infinite happiness, whereas all other three choices (believing if he doesn't exist, not believing if he does not exist, and not believing if he does exist) are all limited in what you will get out of it.

The best objection I see is the "many gods" objection because Pascal assumes only one belief system (Catholic Christianity) can be the one to believe or not believe in.  The other good objection is if God does not reward infinitely or punish infinitely, but instead according to more of a merit system.

In any case, I guess my arguments were a bit different from Pascal, as I said trying to believe (or having hope) was better than trying to disbelieve.
psychojosh13
player, 261 posts
agnostic
previously Jewish
Sat 18 Mar 2006
at 05:44
  • msg #7

Re: Atheism vs. Theism

Heath:
In other words, religious belief costs you nothing


Except that there is a counter to this, which was addressed in the article.  If religious belief consists of anything more than just the mental act of believing in God, then it puts all sorts of restrictions on your behavior.  Attending services takes time away from other, possibly more enjoyable activities.  Religious beliefs may forbid engaging in particular behaviors which would otherwise be desirable (I think we can all agree that Catholicism falls into this category; I'm not as sure about Buddhism though).  And lastly, religious beliefs may prevent a person from making achievements which require some violation of said beliefs (e.g. using research on human stem cells to develop an effective treatment for brain damage or Alzheimer's disease).

Religious belief does cost something.  It's just that these costs are insignificant when compared with the infinite reward God grants to believers in Pascal's setup, and may or may not be insignificant when compared simply with the tangible benefits of belief while you're still alive.
Heath
GM, 2475 posts
Affiliation: LDS
Sat 18 Mar 2006
at 17:58
  • msg #8

Re: Atheism vs. Theism

psychojosh13:
Religious beliefs may forbid engaging in particular behaviors which would otherwise be desirable (I think we can all agree that Catholicism falls into this category; I'm not as sure about Buddhism though).

So according to your point, behaviors that make you feel good are the most desirable?  Religion teaches disciplined behavior and high moral philosophies.  I'm not sure how that can be considered worse than giving in to your every carnal desire...
quote:
And lastly, religious beliefs may prevent a person from making achievements which require some violation of said beliefs (e.g. using research on human stem cells to develop an effective treatment for brain damage or Alzheimer's disease).

But most religions actually allow for individual belief here.  You can't really blame "moral" questions on religion, or else they would not invade the secular society so pervasively.  These are human ethics questions, not religious.

quote:
Religious belief does cost something.  It's just that these costs are insignificant when compared with the infinite reward God grants to believers in Pascal's setup, and may or may not be insignificant when compared simply with the tangible benefits of belief while you're still alive.

Actually, the point of Pascal's theory is that life is short and the sacrifices you do make are statistically irrelevant compared to the possibilities of eternal life and reward.  Thus, if there is no God, then it is still insignificant, statistically speaking.  (He did not consider the altruistic side of it, which is that most religions engage in numerous humanitarian projects and help the sick and poor and disadvantaged.  There are numerous benefits that were not even considered because he focused strictly on the selfish aspect of it.)


Also, every study I've seen shows that religion has a positive effect on the human psyche.  It is psychologically healthy.  I would need to see a test that says it hurts individuals to believe in God.
This message was last edited by the GM at 18:09, Sat 18 Mar 2006.
psychojosh13
player, 262 posts
agnostic
previously Jewish
Sun 19 Mar 2006
at 05:31
  • msg #9

Re: Atheism vs. Theism

Heath:
Actually, the point of Pascal's theory is that life is short and the sacrifices you do make are statistically irrelevant compared to the possibilities of eternal life and reward.  Thus, if there is no God, then it is still insignificant, statistically speaking.


Life may be short compared to eternity, but the 20-something years I've been here so far have felt pretty long, and the fact that I'm likely to repeat this length of time several times over while I'm still here means I'd like to enjoy some of it while I can, rather than spend my whole "short" life making sacrifices only to get an eternity of passive unconsciousness afterward.

Heath:
Also, every study I've seen shows that religion has a positive effect on the human psyche.  It is psychologically healthy.  I would need to see a test that says it hurts individuals to believe in God.


Hurt people?  No.  But there is a bit more to it than that, which these studies have not addressed to my knowledge.  Recent research suggests that some people are inherently incapable of the leap of faith required to accept God without empirical support (search for the phrase "god gene" to get some interesting reading material).  All the research on the mental and physiological effects of religious belief must be affected by the fact that the research subjects are wired to more easily accept the mode of thought necessary for true religious belief.  However, for someone like me (and I've tried the sincere religious belief thing before; it just doesn't work for me), religion would just be a lot of sacrifice for little to no benefit outside of a superficial affiliation with other people.
Heath
GM, 2476 posts
Affiliation: LDS
Mon 20 Mar 2006
at 02:59
  • msg #10

Re: Atheism vs. Theism

What you're saying by this appears to be that the present consciousness and your lifestyle choices put you in a comfort zone you don't want to get out of, or don't exercise faith to change because of your lack of belief.  And when you weigh that against the possibility that the religions are right and you could have eternal life (infinite happiness forever), you don't think it's worth the risk.

And faith and belief are two different things.  Many people doubt their churches, yet still live them and exercise faith in them.  Faith is hope.  The scriptures say that you plant your hope/faith like a seed and it will grow over time as you continue to exercise faith (notice the verb).  Faith is not something you have or don't have; it's something you do or don't exercise.

So I don't buy the argument that a person can or cannot believe.  They can always hope and act in accordance with hope.  It is just easier not to, regardless of whether eternal consequences await in the future.
katisara
player, 1423 posts
Mon 20 Mar 2006
at 15:43
  • msg #11

Re: Atheism vs. Theism

psychojosh13:
rather than spend my whole "short" life making sacrifices only to get an eternity of passive unconsciousness afterward.


Either you're not a mathematician, or you've attributed the possibility of there being an afterlife to a straight 0.

Remember the calculation.  Which is larger:
90%*Lotsa fun*80 years + 99%*No Fun/Very UnFun*infinity years <- you put your stakes on enjoying now, and either your afterlife is limbo (you're right) or hell (you're wrong)
or
50%Lotsa fun*80 years + .00000001%*Lotsa LOTSA fun* infinity years <- you put your stakes on living after death and either you hit the jackpot (you're right) or you're in limbo (you're wrong).

We can reduce this to a simple cost ratio - is the difference between living WITHOUT religion vs. living with religion greater or less than one percent times infinity?  Only when you are 100% undeniably certain you won't go to heaven does living without religion begin to pay off, and even then, you're ignoring the health benefits Heath brought up.

As an aside, Buddhism does look to be more restrictive than Catholicism.  It starts with no drinking and goes on from there.  But that's only the local temple we visited, I'm sure there are other varients.

quote:
Recent research suggests that some people are inherently incapable of the leap of faith required to accept God without empirical support (search for the phrase "god gene" to get some interesting reading material).


Really?  Where have you read this?  I'd not heard of it and I'd be interested in seeing the research, if you have it on hand.

quote:
  All the research on the mental and physiological effects of religious belief must be affected by the fact that the research subjects are wired to more easily accept the mode of thought necessary for true religious belief.  However, for someone like me (and I've tried the sincere religious belief thing before; it just doesn't work for me), religion would just be a lot of sacrifice for little to no benefit outside of a superficial affiliation with other people.


I would question the broad statement like that based on subjective experience.  Have you tried every spiritual path?  Have you tried psycho-spirituality?  If you haven't tried everything, it's difficult to put forward the assumption like that.  The path you tried didn't work (when you tried it), but there are many, many variables that would have an impact on this.
Quixotic
player, 121 posts
Reviving long dead topics
If only briefly...
Mon 20 Mar 2006
at 19:13
  • msg #12

Re: Atheism vs. Theism

katisara:
Remember the calculation.  Which is larger:
90%*Lotsa fun*80 years + 99%*No Fun/Very UnFun*infinity years <- you put your stakes on enjoying now, and either your afterlife is limbo (you're right) or hell (you're wrong)
or
50%Lotsa fun*80 years + .00000001%*Lotsa LOTSA fun* infinity years <- you put your stakes on living after death and either you hit the jackpot (you're right) or you're in limbo (you're wrong).


Not to mention that there's nothing that says religion, faith, even Christianity has to have a 40% reduction in 'fun'.  So I don't drink alcohol or have promiscuous sex.  It's a pretty childish take on life to say that is the ultimate in pleasure, and anything else is sacrifice.

I'd take the pleasure of being a father over those any day.

One of the things that is a tragedy of the modern church is that it has gone along with the idea that religion is supposed to be boring, and that we give up fun in exchange for eternity.

The pleasure of being wrapped up in worship and communion with my God is amazing, and there's no hangover the next day.
rogue4jc
GM, 1815 posts
I'm the wretch they
talk of in that song
Tue 21 Mar 2006
at 01:54
  • msg #13

Re: Atheism vs. Theism

I've never looked at church as being boring. (And I certainly don't feel life as a christian as boring.) I see church as enjoyable, and often rewarding in the form of gathering with friends. (Plus there is the additional 'charge' from attending, and finding the service being encouraging, or challenged to follow more closely to God's way.)
Heath
GM, 2477 posts
Affiliation: LDS
Tue 21 Mar 2006
at 18:04
  • msg #14

Re: Atheism vs. Theism

There is an LDS scripture which states:  "God is that Man might be; and Man is that he might have joy."

True religious practice leads to the ultimate joy and happiness, in this life as well as in the next.  A rambunctious lifestyle without God leads to temporary pleasures and self-serving, but even in this life leads only to heartache, despair, and loathing.  So the rewards are not just heavenly in nature; they exist throughout life.

Of course, that is talking about the life actions you take, not "faith" in general.  Many atheists could live a life that follows the same guidelines as theists and avoid the same problems, although there may be some emptiness associated with it.
katisara
player, 1426 posts
Tue 21 Mar 2006
at 18:21
  • msg #15

Re: Atheism vs. Theism

From a psychological standpoint, religion, or at least spirituality, does seem to be very important. Freud was fairly dismissive of religion, however his most famous student, Jung, holds religion and myth in very high regard and pretty much dedicated his career to examining the relation between the two.  From my reading, I'm not aware of any big names in the psychology community who seem to feel spirituality is bad, but quite a number who expound upon how good or even necessary it is.

Spirituality allows us to externalize our internal concerns, conflicts and difficulties in a safe method.  It also serves as a method of growth and self-discovery.
Heath
GM, 2480 posts
Affiliation: LDS
Tue 21 Mar 2006
at 18:23
  • msg #16

Re: Atheism vs. Theism

A study released last week also showed that people who have religion feel less lonely in life.
Falkus
player, 168 posts
Tue 21 Mar 2006
at 22:44
  • msg #17

Re: Atheism vs. Theism

We can reduce this to a simple cost ratio - is the difference between living WITHOUT religion vs. living with religion greater or less than one percent times infinity?  Only when you are 100% undeniably certain you won't go to heaven does living without religion begin to pay off, and even then, you're ignoring the health benefits Heath brought up.

How does any of this counter the fact that god might not be the christian god, that god might be malicious and punish you regardless of what you believe, or that god might reward skepticism and punish blind faith?
katisara
player, 1428 posts
Tue 21 Mar 2006
at 23:05
  • msg #18

Re: Atheism vs. Theism

Falkus:
How does any of this counter the fact...


Firstly, the equation is a question of believing in God or not on the assumption that there is a possibility you will be rewarded for belief alone.  It doesn't address which belief system to follow (nor does it have to).  The low probability accounts for the possibility of God NOT rewarding you for belief.  It also accounts for the possibility that God rewards you for a belief you didn't pick.

quote:
that god might not be the christian god,


This should be addressed in a different equation, and it would require a study of the different religions.  Presumably, any religion that believes in reincarnation or the result of your belief has no bearing on your end location should not be followed, since your decision doesn't change whether you suffer eternal damnation or not, nor does it significantly change your odds of EVENTUALYL getting an eternal reward.  Rather, we should show preference for religions that give you ONE chance to choose, and you go to hell or heaven.  But as I said, it's a different equation.

quote:
that god might be malicious and punish you regardless of what you believe,


This has been answered.  It's accounted for as being equivalent to believing in God when there is none (since your belief doesn't change the result).

quote:
or that god might reward skepticism and punish blind faith?


This would be accounted for in the religion equation, with the addition of 'mysterious faiths no one has ever heard of'.  We'd have to assign a percentage chance to God not wanting people to believe in Him, or that God wants people to be independent thinkers.  This would require some substantial research and debate.  However, I think it would be fair to assume the odds of this are LOWER than the odds that God DOES want you to believe in Him.  If that is the case, the original equation keeps its original values, and the religion equation would simply have to be fine tuned to account for the possibility of the new religion - skepticism.

The only problem arises when we have reason to believe this skeptic God is MORE likely than a non-skeptic God, because at that point we add another percentage chance of infinite happiness to the other side of the equation with a higher cardinality than the infinite happiness on the 'Christian God' side of the equation.
psychojosh13
player, 264 posts
agnostic
previously Jewish
Thu 23 Mar 2006
at 02:10
  • msg #19

Re: Atheism vs. Theism

katisara:
The only problem arises when we have reason to believe this skeptic God is MORE likely than a non-skeptic God, because at that point we add another percentage chance of infinite happiness to the other side of the equation with a higher cardinality than the infinite happiness on the 'Christian God' side of the equation.


Premise 1 - God exists
P2 - God wants humans to live up to their fullest potential
P3 - God created us (I use the term loosely here) with minds that are capable of various levels of cognitive functioning
P4 - Examining evidence and making conclusions based on available information uses a higher level of cognitive functioning than accepting conclusions on faith alone
Conclusion - God prefers that people base their conclusions on examining evidence and making conclusions based on available information
rogue4jc
GM, 1816 posts
I'm the wretch they
talk of in that song
Thu 23 Mar 2006
at 03:13
  • msg #20

Re: Atheism vs. Theism

I have to say that the premises you give couldn't possibly lead to only one conclusion.

As well, premise #4 would seem to be added based on what you may believe. That's fine if you believe it, but it's a specific premise to lead to a conclusion. It is faith we're talking about in a way, so really no evidence is even needed to make any premise.
psychojosh13
player, 265 posts
agnostic
previously Jewish
Thu 23 Mar 2006
at 03:29
  • msg #21

Re: Atheism vs. Theism

rogue4jc:
It is faith we're talking about in a way, so really no evidence is even needed to make any premise.


So if we're not bothering premises, can we still have a logical argument about the subject?
Sign In