[SallythePearl]

Actually, logic and game theory support a belief in God rather than disbelief, per Pascal's Wager.

Which Elondre also mentioned... but then you have to ask yourself whether or not its morally correct to believe in that which you really have no evidence to believe.

Sure its probably a good bet, and its an evolutionary boon, to be able to see patterns & be forewarned as to possible risks & rewards.

But is it right? Is it even smart?


~just posing some questions

[EasyLOAD]

Why do humans need a God?

I think science is proving that it's hard-wired into our brains; I know Richard Dawkins has said that this is the case.

I probably don't know the significant difference between a deist and an evangelist.

A deist believes in god. And evangelist (in any religion) wants you to know about and share their beliefs. That's why my favorite flavors of Christianity are those which are specifically non-evangelistic (pretty much Quakers and Unitarian Universalists). There could conceivably be evangelical deists.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no harm in believing in god. The problems all come from believing in and following religions.

[geaveheadeNox]

I think science is proving that it's hard-wired into our brains; I know Richard Dawkins has said that this is the case.

I'd posted some links to that idea here...

http://www.philadelphiaspeaks.com/fo...-religion.html

[fmrcurter]

As far as I'm concerned, there's no harm in believing in god. The problems all come from believing in and following religions.

But is there harm in believing something which you have no evidence of?

[Srewxardsasv]

Actually, logic and game theory support a belief in God rather than disbelief, per Pascal's Wager.

Logic? Game theory? No. Pascal's Wager is not logical.
This is the old argument that goes, If there's no God, no one will punish me for believing in one. But, if there is a God, I might burn on the Lake of Fire for not believing. So, I'll play the odds.

The standard rebuttal to that is that you might be believing in the wrong God. There could be a satanic purple two-headed Donkey that rules supreme, and who's just itching to torture you for eternity for believing in your flavor of God.

So, on the surface Pascal's Wager makes sense, but it too has logical problems.

[rXpX]

But is there harm in believing something which you have no evidence of?

It depends on whether you let your belief affect what you do or not.

I tend to passively believe that there's some ordering force in the Universe, but it doesn't affect what I do.

If you believe that Allah has made you bulletproof, you're going to have problems.

[Pszinygv]

I tend to passively believe that there's some ordering force in the Universe

Me too. I call it gravity.

If you believe that Allah has made you bulletproof, you're going to have problems. hah!

It depends on whether you let your belief affect what you do or not. All joking aside, I agree 100%.

[Retapleapse]

Me too. I call it gravity.

But what causes gravity to occur? And what is it, beyond simply the Newtonian definition?

[Mangoman]

Logic? Game theory? No. Pascal's Wager is not logical.
This is the old argument that goes, If there's no God, no one will punish me for believing in one. But, if there is a God, I might burn on the Lake of Fire for not believing. So, I'll play the odds.

The standard rebuttal to that is that you might be believing in the wrong God. There could be a satanic purple two-headed Donkey that rules supreme, and who's just itching to torture you for eternity for believing in your flavor of God.

So, on the surface Pascal's Wager makes sense, but it too has logical problems.

Pascal's wager is about belief, not specific religious dogmas.

[Sheestgag]

But is there harm in believing something which you have no evidence of?

People believe in geometry, mathematics and physics, all of which depend on unproven -- but inferred -- postulates.

[DoctorIrokezov]

Pascal's wager is about belief, not specific religious dogmas.

So is my post. I think you missed the whole point.

[Audi_z]

So is my post. I think you missed the whole point.

No. The "many gods" supposition does little to upset Pascal's calculation. Only the gods with the power to award or deny salvation are relevant. And even if there are multiple gods -- or even nonautonomous sources of salvation that function mechanistically -- it doesn't really make disbelief a better option than belief in terms of the expected value of four options.

It isn't enough to think that you've blown a hole in Pascal's assessment of one option; you have to show that that hole tips the balance in the other direction.

[uC4F0NVL]

Actually, logic and game theory support a belief in God rather than disbelief, per Pascal's Wager.

I've always found that a lazy man's philosophy. Something for those lacking in the courage of their convictions. It seems a bureaucratic response to matters better left to the head or heart. I would hope a just YHWH would have more respect for the atheist willing to commit to an actual philosophy than someone who went along only because they had nothing to loose.

[Nurfzerne]

When I clicked I thought the headline was "Denim on the rise."

This story is quite a bit more interesting tho. I find it amazing that so many people are fine with throwing off organized religion but not so eager to reject the idea a diety of some sort.

Why do humans need a God?

So that death isn't so scary. People don't like the idea that someday they will flicker out like a candle and everything will go dark.

[JesikaFclq]

So that death isn't so scary. People don't like the idea that someday they will flicker out like and everything will go dark.

Christianity became popular in an era when people thought the world was ending. wars were more frequent. the empire was crumbling, and natural disasters were occuring more frequently. the rapture was something people thought was coming sooner rather than later.

I've always found that a lazy man's philosophy. Something for those lacking in the courage of their convictions. It seems a bureaucratic response to matters better left to the head or heart. I would hope a just YHWH would have more respect for the atheist willing to commit to an actual philosophy than someone who went along only because they had nothing to loose.

that seems a pretty lazy justification for why an atheist is superior. anyone can commit to something, it doesn't make them smart or right. some people are atheists just because they are ornery. nonetheless, I'd wager that many just think it makes sense and it does, it makes as much sense as saying something came from nothing, which is what atheists are committed to.

[BgpOoGI2]

My opinion is that "God" is a vocabulary word, not an entity. God is that which we do not understand. When we start understanding things they become demystified...we no longer think that illness is caused by demons in our body, because we have discovered bacteria and viruses.

The upshot of this is, however, that there will always be another "why?" and that "why?" will be accepted by many as god. For example, say we figure out where the matter that expanded at the time of the big bang came from, then we will have to find out what came before that, and so on, ad infinitum.

Thinking of a deity setting this in motion seems illogical to me because we anthropomorphize it. Something set the universe in motion, that much cannot be denied, since we are all here. But, interpreting whatever this catalyst was as a conscious god with human like thoughts an motives is just projecting what we understand onto the unknown. And really, if you don't characterize your god in human like terms then it turns into a matter of semantics, where you really are just using god as shorthand for "the unexplainable."

[buchmausar]

Thinking of a deity setting this in motion seems illogical to me because we anthropomorphize it. Something set the universe in motion, that much cannot be denied, since we are all here. But, interpreting whatever this catalyst was as a conscious god with human like thoughts an motives is just projecting what we understand onto the unknown. And really, if you don't characterize your god in human like terms then it turns into a matter of semantics, where you really are just using god as shorthand for "the unexplainable."

In the end it seems pretty irrelevant whether you assign human traits to God or not. sure it is the unexplainable, but that doesn't make illogical. if it were illogical, you'd suspect that physicists would all be atheists, but that is not the case. the above point was proven long ago (the unmoved mover). I think some people are just uncomfortable admitting that some things can't be known. Each discovery tends to yield a more complex and mystifying layer. In terms of religion, Christianity rose at a time when the old pagan religions weren't believed any more. people saw them as "illogical" and they didn't address a concern on many people's minds at the time (at least in the area known as mare nostrum)...the end of times. that said, we're not talking about religion here, but deism which is sort of a non-religion. that god, or higher power, remains unexplainable is really the heart of the issue. people are free to believe that there's nothing, though they can't explain why, or that there's something, and they too can't explain how.

[Klorissana]

Christianity became popular in an era when people thought the world was ending. wars were more frequent. the empire was crumbling, and natural disasters were occuring more frequently. the rapture was something people thought was coming sooner rather than later.

Perhaps ... you make an interesting point, but it seems that just about every other form of major organized religion also places a great deal of emphasis on some sort of after life. Death is easier to handle if we believe we're going somewhere new and exciting.

[perhilzit]

I've always found that a lazy man's philosophy. Something for those lacking in the courage of their convictions. It seems a bureaucratic response to matters better left to the head or heart. I would hope a just YHWH would have more respect for the atheist willing to commit to an actual philosophy than someone who went along only because they had nothing to loose.

Again, courage doesn't change Pascal's calculus of what it makes the most sense to do.

[Z1IRo4Ap]

Christianity became popular in an era when people thought the world was ending. wars were more frequent. the empire was crumbling, and natural disasters were occuring more frequently. the rapture was something people thought was coming sooner rather than later.

And when has that not been the case? The world has always been ending. These have always been the end times. Those are ideas that predate Xtianity by centuries, and describe the world we live in now. Don't take my word for it--the signs are everywhere. It's not just a fringe belief, just ask John McCain's good friend, John Hagee.

that seems a pretty lazy justification for why an atheist is superior. anyone can commit to something, it doesn't make them smart or right. I never argued that atheists are superior. We make our choices, just as people of faith do. The point is, believer or nonbeliever, we make a choice. Whatever we commit to, we commit. My problem with Pascal's calculus is that it's a weasel's way out. Yes, as Illiniwek rightly points out, it makes perfet sense, and it is folly to argue it's logical correctness--but that doesn't mean it deserves a lick of respect. It's a theological legal loophole.

it makes as much sense as saying something came from nothing, which is what atheists are committed to. Not at all. Most atheists believe everything came from something. We're just comfortable with a different interpretation of the infinite.