An Interesting Discussion on Pascal's Wager

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes. Right you evaluated the evidence and decided none was sufficient to convince of religion or the existence of God. Another word for decided is choice.

When I hear self-described theists say that belief is a choice, what I hear is "it's an act of will for me to feign belief."

 

[Polymath257]

Any Christian who properly understands Christianity doesn't conduct oneself out of fearing punishment. That's your view and your view should be given it's due consideration.

Of course, 'proper' understanding is *your* interpretation. But that is *your* view and should be given its due.

 

[Heyo]

What if *no* religion seems even remotely likely?

Then you'd contradict one of her premises. At 6:10 she says: "It is not the case that all religions have the probability zero."

 

[RestlessSoul]

When I hear self-described theists say that belief is a choice, what I hear is "it's an act of will for me to feign belief."

Yeah, you do that a lot it seems; hear what you want to hear, and disregard the intent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah, you do that a lot it seems; hear what you want to hear, and disregard the intent.

All right: what do you think the intent is behind claims that belief is a choice?

What choice do you think is involved in the beliefs of people who say this?

 

[RestlessSoul]

All right: what do you think the intent is behind claims that belief is a choice?

What choice do you think is involved in the beliefs of people who say this?

I think there is always an element of choice in the process by which we arrive at our beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be.

Reason, intuition, and aspiration all play their part; we may ask ourselves, consciously or unconsciously, What sort of person do I want to be?, and What might I believe about the world and my place in it, in order to become that person?

For myself, I choose to believe that humans are essentially good, and the universe benign, despite evidence to the contrary. In other words, I choose how the evidence for and against optimism should be weighted.

And I chose to believe in a loving creator, because to do otherwise would, at the time I made that choice, have been to succumb to nihilism and despair. After 21 years of occasionally wavering but never unrewarding faith in God, I know I made the right decision. That’s my Pascal’s wager, and I consider myself a most fortunate and undeserving winner.

 

[Koldo]

I think there is always an element of choice in the process by which we arrive at our beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be.

Reason, intuition, and aspiration all play their part; we may ask ourselves, consciously or unconsciously, What sort of person do I want to be?, and What might I believe about the world and my place in it, in order to become that person?

For myself, I choose to believe that humans are essentially good, and the universe benign, despite evidence to the contrary. In other words, I choose how the evidence for and against optimism should be weighted.

And I chose to believe in a loving creator, because to do otherwise would, at the time I made that choice, have been to succumb to nihilism and despair. After 21 years of occasionally wavering but never unrewarding faith in God, I know I made the right decision. That’s my Pascal’s wager, and I consider myself a most fortunate and undeserving winner.

That is just feigning belief.

This is distinct from simply having a belief. The contrast is very clear. Beliefs just come naturally with absolutely no effort involved whatsoever. The role of 'choice' here is merely a matter of exposure. If, for example, you decide to look into scientific researches, you may end up acquiring a new belief because you chose to get yourself exposed to new information.

 

[Polymath257]

Then you'd contradict one of her premises. At 6:10 she says: "It is not the case that all religions have the probability zero."

Would say that the payoff of no religion is infinite, and the probability is so small that the expected value is minimal. Also, there is a down side: lying to oneself and others, spending time with people who believe nonsense, opportunity cost of doing other things, etc.

For example, I find the “religion” that has the universe as a work of art by a high dimensional high school student that has been forgotten about is far more likely than any of the major religions. But following that religion has no payoff at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think there is always an element of choice in the process by which we arrive at our beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be.

Reason, intuition, and aspiration all play their part; we may ask ourselves, consciously or unconsciously, What sort of person do I want to be?, and What might I believe about the world and my place in it, in order to become that person?

For myself, I choose to believe that humans are essentially good, and the universe benign, despite evidence to the contrary. In other words, I choose how the evidence for and against optimism should be weighted.

And I chose to believe in a loving creator, because to do otherwise would, at the time I made that choice, have been to succumb to nihilism and despair. After 21 years of occasionally wavering but never unrewarding faith in God, I know I made the right decision. That’s my Pascal’s wager, and I consider myself a most fortunate and undeserving winner.

Sounds like you're choosing attitudes or courses of actions, not beliefs.

Choosing to live as if something is true is not the same thing as actually believing that it's true.

 

[Polymath257]

I think there is always an element of choice in the process by which we arrive at our beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be.

Reason, intuition, and aspiration all play their part; we may ask ourselves, consciously or unconsciously, What sort of person do I want to be?, and What might I believe about the world and my place in it, in order to become that person?

For myself, I choose to believe that humans are essentially good, and the universe benign, despite evidence to the contrary. In other words, I choose how the evidence for and against optimism should be weighted.

And I chose to believe in a loving creator, because to do otherwise would, at the time I made that choice, have been to succumb to nihilism and despair. After 21 years of occasionally wavering but never unrewarding faith in God, I know I made the right decision. That’s my Pascal’s wager, and I consider myself a most fortunate and undeserving winner.

As I see it, that is acting ‘as if’ you believe without actually believing. It seems to be choosing what game to play and not believing anything.

For example, when I ask if I believe something, the issue of what sort of person I want to be never enters the picture. I find that to be irrelevant to the truth and so irrelevant to belief. Instead, I ask whether the evidence presented is enough to make the conclusion likely. I think about what alternative explanations there are and how to test those. Whether i*like* the conclusion is simply beside the point. My likes are irrelevant to belief.

 

[PureX]

Sounds like you're choosing attitudes or courses of actions, not beliefs.

Choosing to live as if something is true is not the same thing as actually believing that it's true.

I agree. The former is faith, the latter is belief. They are not the same motivations.

 

[Polymath257]

I agree. The former is faith, the latter is belief. They are not the same motivations.

Interesting. That is not at all how I use the word faith.

Choices of how to live and how to act and what goals to pick are not questions of faith as I see it. They are simply personal choices.

Faith, as I understand it, has to do with believing in spite of evidence or lack of evidence.

For example, saying I have faith that a god exists is not a question of how to act or of goals or any of that. It is a statement that I think a particular type of entity actually exists. The truth of that belief is irrelevant to whether I like it or not. Whether that means I should behave in certain ways *is* a choice, but one on top of the beliefs.

 

[PureX]

Interesting. That is not at all how I use the word faith.

Choices of how to live and how to act and what goals to pick are not questions of faith as I see it. They are simply personal choices.

Faith, as I understand it, has to do with believing in spite of evidence or lack of evidence.

Choices based on what? Sometimes on belief, sometimes on faith. Belief being the presumption that what we think we know is correct. And faith being the hope that what we want to be so will be shown to be so if we pursue it.

 

[Balthazzar]

When I hear self-described theists say that belief is a choice, what I hear is "it's an act of will for me to feign belief."

I've nearly forgotten about my beliefs being less based on the objective. They weren't even properly placed on my subjective. Apart from being told lemon juice is sweet and a lemons peel tasting like cake, I haven't a clue why I believed as I did. I once thought I could catch a bird by holding an empty bread bag close to the ground and whistle while a walk. My beliefs changed when I gained alternative understandings that made more sense.

 

[Balthazzar]

Choices based on what? Sometimes on belief, sometimes on faith. Belief being the presumption that what we think we know is correct. And faith being the hope that what we want to be so will be shown to be so if we pursue it.

I would agree with your stance on belief, but I would suggest that faith is a "desired" belief - substantiated with evidence. I think we grow in it as its further substantiated, being strengthened with evidence.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think there is always an element of choice in the process by which we arrive at our beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be.

Not sure as to this, so can't really deny this.

Reason, intuition, and aspiration all play their part; we may ask ourselves, consciously or unconsciously, What sort of person do I want to be?, and What might I believe about the world and my place in it, in order to become that person?

Seems reasonable.

For myself, I choose to believe that humans are essentially good, and the universe benign, despite evidence to the contrary. In other words, I choose how the evidence for and against optimism should be weighted.

I'm more as to a mixture for humans - neither good nor bad essentially - but I prefer to believe (and seemingly supported by evidence) that humans are more likely to be good than bad. But I don't see the universe as being benign at all, and hence why we should try to eliminate our divisions if we want to survive as a species - even if this matters - but it obviously matters to the human species. The Earth might be a lovely planet but hardly benign, especially as to our earliest existence, and only so now because we have fashioned it so - with still much natural trauma to remind us as to such.

And I chose to believe in a loving creator, because to do otherwise would, at the time I made that choice, have been to succumb to nihilism and despair. After 21 years of occasionally wavering but never unrewarding faith in God, I know I made the right decision. That’s my Pascal’s wager, and I consider myself a most fortunate and undeserving winner.

I don't know why some seem to think that without God or a creator, nihilism and/or despair has to rule our lives. It seems to me more about the opportunities and freedoms open to humans more than much else (the future) - even if one might still be open to some creator or creative force. And I too have hardly wavered as to not believing in any God - and have had nothing to suggest otherwise in my life.

 

[Polymath257]

Choices based on what? Sometimes on belief, sometimes on faith. Belief being the presumption that what we think we know is correct. And faith being the hope that what we want to be so will be shown to be so if we pursue it.

Choices based on my values, inclinations, desires, etc.

And, again, I don't see hope and faith as being related. I can *hope* that my plans will work out, but I realize that I have to *work* for that to be a real possibility and, even with work there is a possibility that they won't.

I can *hope* without belief or even being convinced (I can *hope* an election goes a certain way even if I am not convinced it will). I wouldn't say I have *faith* the election will go the way I want. That would be a much stronger statement.

 

[PureX]

Interesting. That is not at all how I use the word faith.

Choices of how to live and how to act and what goals to pick are not questions of faith as I see it. They are simply personal choices.

Faith, as I understand it, has to do with believing in spite of evidence or lack of evidence.

For example, saying I have faith that a god exists is not a question of how to act or of goals or any of that. It is a statement that I think a particular type of entity actually exists.

That's belief. You believe you are correct in thinking that a God entity exists. Because you believe it, you act accordingly.

The truth of that belief is irrelevant to whether I like it or not.

Liking it has nothing to do with belief. We believe what we think is true, is true. We may not know it's true, but we're choosing to believe it's true anyway because we think it is. We surmise it to be true. We may not like it, but we believe it anyway.

Whether that means I should behave in certain ways *is* a choice, but one on top of the beliefs.

Choosing to act on faith does not require that we believe our actions will bear out the truth we're hoping for. It doesn't require that we believe anything. Faith is based on hope and trust, not on belief. We choose to act on our hope that what we want to be born out as true, will be shown to be true when we act on it. But we also know that it may not be.

Your definition of faith is just you bias against beliefs that you don't agree with. But that's not faith. Faith is acting on hope. Not on unfounded belief.

 

[Polymath257]

That's belief. You believe you are correct in thinking that a God entity exists. Because you believe it, you act accordingly.

Liking it has nothing to do with belief. We believe what we think is true, is true. We may not know it's true, but we're choosing to believe it's true anyway because we think it is. We surmise it to be true. We may not like it, but we believe it anyway.

Choosing to act on faith does not require that we believe our actions will bear out the truth we're hoping for. It doesn't require that we believe anything. Faith is based on hope and trust, not on belief. We choose to act on our hope that what we want to be born out as true, will be shown to be true when we act on it. But we also know that it may not be.

Your definition of faith is just you bias against beliefs that you don't agree with. But that's not faith. Faith is acting on hope. Not on unfounded belief.

Again, a *very* different way of using the word than I am accustomed to. I would not say i was acting on faith when I was, in fact, acting on hope.

 

[PureX]

Choices based on my values, inclinations, desires, etc.

And, again, I don't see hope and faith as being related. I can *hope* that my plans will work out, but I realize that I have to *work* for that to be a real possibility and, even with work there is a possibility that they won't.

I can *hope* without belief or even being convinced (I can *hope* an election goes a certain way even if I am not convinced it will). I wouldn't say I have *faith* the election will go the way I want. That would be a much stronger statement.

Exactly. And that hope is the difference between faith and belief.