Pascal's Wager, Presumption of Atheism
I think Pascal's wager is nigh unassailable in the discussion about the presumption of atheism v theism. The wager being that we ought to be theists because the stakes are far higher to be wrong if theism proves true and atheism false.
In other areas of life I think the wager becomes problematic, for example, which of the many claimed gods should I follow? Because surely I should take the path with the highest risks (according to Pascal) if I want to ensure my long term security, but that hardly seems like a reasonable way to find a a "true" god. Why not just create your own religion where evil-doers suffer eternal torture and the righteous live in an unimaginably wonderful paradise forever? (I’m looking at you, Jesus) But I think that debate is beside the point of the presumption of (a)theism conversation.
Within the "many gods" debate there are competing punishments and rewards depending on which god you choose, whereas within the presumption debate there are only two real options and one clearly has a higher stakes outcome, namely if theism is true, you better find yourself on that side belief.
If the ‘many gods’ problem is too big of an issue I would point to the Marcus Aurelius quote, “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.”
In conclusion, we should at least be theists based around Pascal's wager and leave “what kind of theists” for another conversation. — lupac
Out of curiousity, what would a religion based around rationalism look like? — lupac
The thing I think is ridiculous is the notion that we can choose our beliefs based on the potential for benefitting, rather than based on our usual methods for evaluating the truth of propositions. — Relativist
We all do what we need to do to survive (and avoid paralysis), and I'm not judging anyone for doing that. But by that same token, I do what I do - and that is to seek truth, in the way I know how.when the options for traditional reasoning are all used up we have to move on and try something else, or we will be paralyzed — lupac
Pragmatic Encroachment and Pascal’s Wager
If knowledge is circumstantial, it is seemingly impossible to make a knowledge claim about atheism. Under the view that knowledge is circumstantial and subject to the stakes of the circumstance, atheism faces several problems. According to Pascal’s Wager, the belief in God is a high stakes situation. If God is real, then belief in him is infinitely rewarding and non belief is infinitely punishing, if he is not real then belief in God is slightly punishing and non belief is not rewarding or punishing. So in any case, belief in God is a high stakes situation. Pragmatic encroachment affirms that if the stakes are higher in a given circumstance, then more evidence is required to obtain a justified belief. This presents some problems for atheism. Since the stakes for atheism are greater than theism, it requires more evidence to claim knowledge of atheism given equal evidence. Granted that the evidence is equal, it is near impossible to have a justified belief in atheism.
If pragmatic encroachment is true, atheism falls short in the burden of proof debate. Since the stakes are higher for atheism it requires more evidence to be proven true, and the evidence is equal, so the burden of proof must fall on atheism. While atheism can still be true, it is far from justified under pragmatic encroachment, therefore it fails to be knowledge. — Dgallen
A proposition for which there is neither evidence for nor against is assigned a 50/50 probability. This is true both for basic logic, as well as statistics. — LD Saunders
I have no evidence one way or t'other as to the presence of any nuclear attack submarines submerged in Cape Cod Bay. Do you mean to say that the chances of one being there are therefore 50-50? — tim wood
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.