I am thinking about writing this as a philosophical essay, but I am going to try to simplify it a bit for the purposes of this blog.
Atheism and Agnosticism, that is the belief in no God or the non-belief in God, are irrational beliefs to hold. Furthermore, believing in God and Heaven, but not Hell, is also irrational. To explain this, it is important to understand what rationality means. A choice is rational when it provides the highest utility of the available choices. Utility is a tricky concept, but simply put, it is a person's well being. It is not as simple as just saying it is a person's happiness, because a person might be happy when they take heroine, but their health and quality of life suffers. But for the purposes of this blog, I will try not to get bogged down with the details. To provide a basic example of a rational decision, say someone offers you the choice between $10 or $100. The rational choice would be the $100 because it provides more utility. The irrational choice would be the $10 because it provides less utility. While we might disagree about whether $10 is better than $100, the main idea is that making the decision that maximizes utility is rational. Non utility maximizing decisions are irrational.
With those basic concepts defined, I want to move on to the main argument. Pascal began this line of argument with his famous "wager" saying that it is better for a person to believe in God than to not believe in God because there is much to gain from believing in God and little to gain from not believing in God. I want to take that one step further to say that it isn't enough to just believe in God, but one must also believe in Heaven, a place of eternal joy, for believers and Hell, a place of eternal suffering, for non-believers. To explain this further, I want to introduce the concept of "expected value." In economics, expected value is used when deciding between two alternatives where outcomes are unknown. For example, consider a slot machine with a payout rate of 95%, meaning that for every dollar put into the machine, over a long enough period, 95 cents will be returned. The expected value of putting one dollar into that slot machine would be 95 cents. If someone were choosing to play the slot machine (expected value 95 cents) or not play (expected value 100 cents), the rational person would not play the game. Now with with idea of a slot machine, there is also a value associated with the joy of playing the game, which many people would argue, outweighs the 5 cent investment. I will get to that, as it relates to my argument, later.
In the framework of expected value, we can compare the alternative beliefs out there. For the purposes of this entry, I have simplified the beliefs a person could hold down to three main areas, Belief in Heaven and Hell, Belief in Heaven Only, and Disbelief in Heaven or Hell. To be fair, there is a fourth category of Belief in Hell only, but accounting for that ancillary belief does not change the math. Examples of the Heaven and Hell beliefs are Christianity, Islam, etc. Heaven Only beliefs would be those that let you reincarnate until you reach heaven, and those that believe that when you die, you automatically get to go to heaven. Finally the Disbelief in Heaven and Hell beliefs would be Atheism, Agnosticism, and any religion in which people just eternally reincarnate. When you perform basic calculations about expected value of these beliefs, you find that belief in Heaven and Hell always wins out over the others, even if probability leans toward disbelief. To save you from the mathy part of this, I will just try to explain why this is the case. It is easy to understand why Atheism or Agnosticism have a low return on investment because if the Atheist is right, they get nothing and if he is wrong, he either lucks into the Heaven of a merciful God, or is condemned to the Hell of a vengeful God. With belief in Heaven only, it is less clear. The basic idea is that, there is no benefit to believing those religions because, even if you don't believe, you get to go to Heaven. However, if you believe in only Heaven, and turns out that you were wrong, you have the chance of going to Hell. Thus, Heaven and Hell religions have the highest payoff (even if there are multiple Heaven and Hell religions from which to choose).
There are definite criticisms of the argument I outlined above, but they are all stupid. The first argument would be that there are as many religions that believe in Heaven and Hell as could be imagined. I mean I could make one up right now. To that, I say, go for it. You have a much better chance of getting a payoff from that crazy made-up belief than you do believing in nothing. The second main argument is that God will see through this false belief that you got to through reason. That is, that reaching this belief through the above argument is not true faith. To that, I say, bull. Beliefs are beliefs and if you legitimately hold them, it doesn't matter how you got them. And even if God does sift through the believers before He opens the doors to Heaven, you have a much better chance of getting in with your false belief than with no belief at all Finally, the last argument, that goes back to that slot machine analogy, is that the utility you get from being an atheist outweighs the utility you get from holding of these beliefs. That is just demonstrably false. One it would be very tough to argue that atheists are happier than believers and two, even if they were happy for a finite amount of time during their life, even the .000001% chance at eternal bliss (to put it in expected value-terms .000001% * infinity), would still be infinitely greater than any joy you could experience during a lifetime. There is no real argument for believing in Atheism or Agnosticism.
What this means is that Atheists and Agnostics need to put on their reason hats, just pick one religion, and believe it. It doesn't matter whether it is Christianity, Islam, or the one they made up. They are better off believing in a Heaven and a Hell than they are believing in nothing.
Dang I havent commented on anyone's blog yet. sorry guys, I've been lost in the shuffle of life.
ReplyDeleteI saw this yesterday, it doesn't exactly relate to Dan's piece but still a cool visual aid: http://i.imgur.com/WITlo.jpg
First of all, I'd like to say, if there is a God, and if God ever needs some legal advice, he should call 1 800 HARNACK
This is a very interesting essay. I wish I would have taken that Logic class at UCI with you and Greg. Well, here's my best shot...
Using logic to prove why people should believe in Heaven is as valid to me as using logic to prove the non-existence of god. Both arguments can be made logically, but in the end, people believe what they want. For me, the idea of heaven doesn't do much. Maybe I have the wrong image of it, but I really enjoy the love and pain of being a human in this beautiful fucked up world. On the other hand, I'm sure i would not say the same thing if i wasn't white+american+middle_class etc. BUT I AM HAHA!
In addition to using logic, a lot of people become atheists in response to the murder, lies, and greed associated with modern religion. People often think that to believe in god one must be religious, which I guess is where spirituality comes in. I consider myself a spiritual person. I would never associate with the rules or book of any religion. I appreciate many of their teachings but have no need to follow a specific path. In my reality, whatever happens when I die is what needs to happen. If I come back here I'm sure it will be another great learning process. If I move on to a higher plane, that sounds groovy. If nothing happens, well, my rotting flesh will be fed to some sharks, who will then poop me out and call it a day.
I know I'm not addressing much of the logic argument made in this essay. To me, logic can explain anything we want to believe. I recently Googled the most ridiculous thing I could think for fun to see what would happen. I googled "Doritos are Healthy" and found an article by the EPA stating that the corn ingredients in Doritos make them more healthy than walnuts, which are actually poisonous. can't argue with the facts.
anyway. if there is one thing I know for sure, wherever I go after this life, Dan's coming with me. like it or not :]
Wow, great post. I agree that you're better off believing in a God in CASE there is an afterlife. I hope that there is an afterlife,and I don't like the idea of reincarnation because it makes me feel tired. I don't want to go through middle school again!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think there is a huge difference between atheists and agnostics. For my definitions, I am considering atheists= no God, and agnostics= don't know if there's a god. Let's be Christmassy for one second and think about it this way:
If someone said they don't believe in Santa Clause VS didn't know if Santa Clause exists, this is actually a HUGE difference. I mean, think about how you would react to a grown adult saying they weren't sure whether or not there was a Santa....
The point being that I don't think you can put these two groups together because they are very different. I have only recently started my 'spiritual journey', but before i think I considered myself agnostic because I was too lazy to try to figure out what I really thought. Should a belief come from logic, or should it ever be based on how you "feel", like what your gut tells you? Maybe some Atheists know the reasoning, but just don't feel like it's right.
Dan, I like that you include Atheism as a belief system.
ReplyDeleteMy mentor/drinking buddy Dale has two sayings: "You can't reason a person out of a problem they 'believed' themselves into..." and "When you understand why you don't believe in the other 6999 deities, you'll understand why I don't believe in yours either."
Mostly I reply [tongue in cheek] with "God thanks you for doing His work and testing my faith."...Dale hates that.
I would push what Nik said a littler further and claim that there's a suspension of logic with matters of faith. There's a huge fundamental difference between "I think" and "I believe" and [coming back to our previous weeks' posts] we've gotten into dangerous territory mixing up the two:
"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen..."
versus
"I think there's God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen..."
And even taking it further:
"I think the rich should be taxed more in order to contribute more money to the federal budget..."
Versus
"I believe the rich should be taxed more in order to contribute more money to the federal budget..."
In matters of logic, belief is a dangerous supposition [tautology]. Makes me wonder...this separation of Church and State...I would go as far to say the spirit of the concept is to separate logic and belief. Again, you "can't reason a person out of a problem they 'believed' themselves into."
When I think of Dan and Nik's bromance, I imagine this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxbROMQTjKg
Nik, you are so smart and cool. I love your beliefs, but I want to take a moment to defend my own. In my article, I am not trying to prove that God does or does not exist. You are correct in saying that trying to use logic to prove something's non-existence or existence is relatively futile. What I am demonstrating in my little shoddily thrown together argument is that a person is better off believing in Heaven and Hell than they are not believing in Heaven and Hell. Because Truth is, in my opinion, unreachable, all we have in this world is our beliefs about the truth. Those beliefs might be wrong, but there are some beliefs that have more utility than others. For example, it behooves us to believe that water is not poisonous because we need water to survive. Believing water was poisonous would probably lead to a much lower utility.
ReplyDeleteYou are right to say that facts can be shown to prove anything, but logic is a different breed. A fully formed logical argument is not easily disproved. To put my argument in a more logic-based structure:
Premise 1: People should be rational with their decisions
Premise 2: Beliefs are decisions
Premise 3: It is rational to believe thoughts that provide the highest utility just like it is rational to take actions that have the highest utility
Premise 4: Believing in Heaven and Hell has a higher utility than other beliefs
Conclusion: People should believe in Heaven and Hell
Now, of course you might throw in the standard impractical philosopher's arguments like: "should people be rational?" or "Is being better off really good?" but those are fools' quests. I am pretty sure most normal people believe that doing things that make you better off is rational and better.
Also, I made an excel spreadsheet with the math involved that demonstrates why belief in Heaven in Hell provides higher utility. I can send it out if you guys are interested.
Woah, when I was typing my response to Nik, you guys snuck in there!
ReplyDeleteRita, you are right that Atheism and Agnosticism are very different, but they both fall into the category of disbelief in my opinion. I like to think of it with the classic analogy of a unicorn race. Imagine there is a unicorn race going on in the universe somewhere that I just told you about. Then I said, "Hey Rita, if you bet on the right unicorn, you get 10 billion dollars. But if you lose, or don't bet, then you lose 10 billion dollars... " It might stress you out to know that you might lose 10 billion dollars, but the logical thing to do would be to do the research and pick the unicorn with the best chance of winning. The Atheist in this analogy would say, "I don't believe in Unicorns," while the agnostic would say "I just don't know which Unicorn to choose if I choose at all." In the end, both classes don't place a bet and both end up losing the cosmic Unicorn race.
Mark, I think and believe you are right to say that most people treat thoughts and beliefs as different, but I also think that most people, including myself, are stupid. I think that people trick themselves into believing that thoughts and beliefs are different so they can feel better about being wrong about their thoughts. In the end, the end result of believing there is gravity, or thinking there is gravity is the same. You act like there is gravity. In the end, it is just semantics. I believe in one God. I think there is one God. both say the same thing. Now if you are subconsciously applying the suffix to the second sentence "but I might be wrong," that is up to you, but it is not in the meaning of the words.
interesting microecon lesson haha!! i agree that we are all pretty stupid, just to throw that out there as a disclaimer to my own opinions :)
ReplyDeletei think a huge problem with trying to argue this type of subject (in any setting) is the lack of definition of terms. we assume that we all have a basic and general understanding of what or who 'god' is, and go from there. i think the first term that probably comes to most of our minds is "a higher power." well what the fuck does that mean? what are some powers we don't possess that we assume something else is capable of? and that is where i like to start breaking it down.
some things man can't do (to my knowledge):
- control the weather/natural disaster
- prevent death
- force one to love another
to believe in a higher power (before even considering a heaven/hell) we must accept that something of the above listed nature is capable of accomplishment by something else.
bc of the fact that utility value is not the same for every person (i think we can agree on this), it is hard to put a percentage on the value in believing in a heaven or hell. also, are we assuming that there truly IS an up for every down? or a negative value for every positive? why is it necessary to even consider there being a hell? to base it off of the risk factor seems, well, lacking in "faith."
i find it highly irrational to not believe in a higher power, but i find very little argument for believing in a heaven or hell. my only argument to prove this would be in the relevancy of the universe, which has a balance and symmetry that definitely points in the direction of there being a good for every bad (if there's a heaven, there's a hell).
why is it just so damned difficult to think that there is neither!?
1) I reject your third premise. Raping someone to save the lives of 1,000 innocent children yields the higher utility, too. Even if you say that rape is always wrong, your in-action is causing the death of 1,000 innocent lives. In utilitarianism, you are morally (or rationally, as we're putting it) obligated to rape someone. I think we'd all agree that rape is never okay. Or- you're on a speeding train that won't stop. If you maintain your course, a Girl Scout Troop will die. If you change the course of direction, a homeless man will die. In-action will result in the death of more innocent lives than changing the course of the train. Taking action is homicidal, but you are morally obligated to murder that homeless man. Your conflation that utilitarianism is the "right" (or ONLY) moral/rational standard is wrong. What about Kantian ethics? -I think you'd like him. Or a non-consequentialist schema - one that evaluates the morality of actions based on the intentions of the actor. Despite the awesome utility points, would one not be a sinner to convert to Islam merely for the promise of virgins?
ReplyDelete2) We're yet to delineate the exact meaning of 'rationality,' so let's not make up our own definitions, either. What has been defined here is rationality within the utilitarian scheme (i.e. the most rational decision is the one that yields the highest utility). Rationality is generally defined as the use of one's reason. Reason is considered to be the means by which we make sense of things (see how vague that is!). Artistotle discusses this "power" in his Nicomachean Ethics and extrapolates that morality lies within the "Golden Mean" (i.e. the mean of virtue and vice) - a classic of Aristotle's collection.
3) Monotheists are all the same; they all believe in one god. So, Christians, Muslims and people of the Jewish faith are all the same, right? -Wrong! Atheism is the disbelief in any god. Agnosticism is the suspension of belief on the matter. Agnostics generally believe that either there's not enough evidence to draw a conclusion or they simply don't know. Atheists have made their decisions; they actively believe that no god exists. They may be the same to you, but you are wrong, sir.
4) The unicorn race analogy makes no sense. Are we watching the race? If not, there's nothing to validate or corroborate the results of this apparently mushroom-induced race. If so, I'm pretty sure an atheist would believe in unicorns if he saw one. Furthermore, being agnostic would have no impact on your ability to place a bet. Check out David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding or W.V.O Quine's The Web of Belief - both fantastic epistemological works that explore the subjects of truth, belief, and miracles.
5) Pascal's Wager is an interesting one, but it drives philosophers crazy. Why? -Because it operates under the assumption that you can control your beliefs. Certainly our beliefs can be influenced by a great many things, but seeing as you're a person of faith...genuinely try NOT believing in god, then you'll see the problem. Nik, I think you're close in saying, "...people believe what they want." But I think a more accurate assertion would be, "People believe what they DO." We can't believe in just whatever we want, especially in the face of refuting evidence (whether you're of faith or not). I can't genuinely or even casually believe that unicorns or Santa Clause exist. Much like Atheists can't take up Pascal on his bet. Much like I can't believe my water is poison. Further, wouldn't god see through one who has found reason to "believe" out of utility and not earnest faith and praise? Is it not criminal to suggest that god can be tricked?
Jamie,
ReplyDeleteI didn't want to get into a definition battle because that is how every philosophical discussion degrades into “well what is reality?” and “How do we even know we exist?” and “if we don’t even know we exist, then why even talk about anything?” But alas, it seems like everyone’s got a problem with one word or the other.
My argument was not about God, whatever form He or She or It takes. My argument was about the utility gained from believing in Heaven and Hell (God kind of is a necessary bonus to that, but not within the scope of my discussion). I defined Heaven as a place of eternal bliss and Hell as a place of eternal suffering. I am not saying that the ACTUAL, REAL, TRUE Heaven and Hell are those things. I am saying that it is better to believe in a religion that has those beliefs than not.
As for utility, yes everyone’s utility is different. One person might get a ton of utility from carrot juice, while another might hate carrots with a passion. I sincerely doubt that this fact has any bearing on my argument, unless you could show that Heaven sucks and has a really low utility for some people, and Hell has a way higher utility for those same people. Or that the utility gained in Heaven is miniscule compared to the glory of not believing in Heaven while alive. Again this gets into a definition battle and again, I am not arguing about what exists or doesn’t. I am arguing that it is better to believe certain things than others because they offer a higher expected payout in the end. Now, that is not to say that believing something guarantees its truth. Just like when you bet on a horse. Betting on a horse doesn’t make the horse win. It just means that if the horse does win, you get a payout. It behooves us to bet on the best horse.
Jawad,
ReplyDelete1) You are not rejecting my third premise, you are attacking utilitarian ethics. Furthermore, you are attacking the straw-man version of utilitarian ethics where these crazy situations arise where you have the decision to kill/rape/burn/pillage a number of objects/people in order to save some greater number of people from a similarly bad fate. Sure, in those situations, you get to do some deep thinking about what to do as your train barrels down the tracks toward the girl scouts, but luckily, most decisions in our lives are not as dramatic. Usually we get to choose between the ketchup that costs $2 and the catsup that costs $3. We weigh the benefits of each and determine whether the utility gained from ketchup at $2 outweighs that of the catsup at $3. We don’t really stop to consider the deep, dark intent of purchasing catsup nor do we consider the virtues of the ketchup buyer. It is just a simple (morally-light) decision. In the same simple way, I am saying that the utility you gain from believing in Heaven in Hell outweighs the utility you gain from not believing. This is not a “rape to save lives” situation, it is a “choose the higher payout” situation. I don’t want to get into an ethical debate right now (normally I do). And I do like Kant, but his ethics fails just as hard in the extremes as Utilitarianism. Would it be better to have a really bad surgeon who intends to be good, or a really good surgeon who is just in it for the money?
You do bring up a good point about the virgins and believing for the wrong reasons. But that does not contradict my argument, it just adds to it by saying, while you are better off than the atheists/agnostics by believing in Heaven and Hell, you would be EVEN better off by believing for the right reasons.
2) Like I said to Jamie, definition battles are lame. I know that “rationality” is a tough concept, but I think that we can all agree that it is rational to make yourself better off and irrational to make yourself worse off. I am not saying that it doesn’t get complicated when you get to decide between making yourself better off by harming others or the world, but that doesn’t mean there is no rational choice to be made in that situation. It only means we are too stupid to figure out what the rational choice is. I have not heard about this “Golden Mean” concept, but it sounds lazy. Why not choose to be only virtuous? Lazy Aristotle. Anyway, we can go down the rabbit hole about rationality, and determinism, and existence, but this is going to be a long discussion if we do.
3) I didn’t say all theists were the same or that Atheism = Agnosticism, I said that they can be grouped for the purposes of my discussion. Which they can. I believe my exact words were:
“For the purposes of this entry, I have simplified the beliefs a person could hold down to three main areas, Belief in Heaven and Hell, Belief in Heaven Only, and Disbelief in Heaven or Hell. To be fair, there is a fourth category of Belief in Hell only, but accounting for that ancillary belief does not change the math.”
Within each grouping, there are countless of different flavors of those beliefs, but each religion falls into one of the four groupings I discussed (even though I skimmed over the Hell-Only religions). If you are Atheistic you believe God does not exist, and if you are Agnostic, you have not chosen to believe in God because you don’t have enough evidence. Atheism is an affirmative belief in nothing, while Agnosticism is the lack of a belief in something. Both however, fall into the category of disbelief.
4) Yes it does make sense! It is not literal. It is an analogy. I used a race because you can bet on the winner of a race, and your bets don’t affect the outcome. I chose unicorns because you can’t prove they exist. The idea is that someone tells you about this race, and you DON’T know if it is or is not actually happening, but they tell you the payoffs. So you don’t know who will win, but you do know that if you bet on certain unicorns (i.e., choose certain religions), and that unicorn wins (i.e., that religion is correct), then you get the payoff. If you lose the bet (i.e., choose the wrong religion, or don’t choose at all), you get the opposite payoff of the winning unicorn. Just like an Agnostic has not chosen a religion, in my analogy, they have not chosen a unicorn. Just like an Atheist believes there is no God, in my analogy, they don’t believe in unicorns so they don’t place a bet. An Agnostic cannot “place a bet” because placing a bet is akin to choosing a religion. They would not be agnostics if they chose a unicorn.
ReplyDelete5) Pascal’s Wager drives philosophers crazy because philosophers want to believe that they are God, and Pascal’s Wager gets in the way of that. But seriously, I am calling Bull here. You can’t control your beliefs? Then what do you control in life? Honestly, you can’t control the sunrise, you can’t control the earth’s gravity, you can’t control the weather, or the laws of physics, or the initial starting positions of the initial molecules of the universe, or your birth. If not your beliefs, then what? Maybe if we live in a deterministic world, you might be right, but in that case, nothing you do matters and it was all predetermined from the beginning of time. So if you believe in free will, then we MUST control our beliefs. Yes, things influence your beliefs, but you are the mind who controls which influences are allowed in. That is like me saying, I don’t control my actions, because I am influenced by a great many things. It might be hard to believe certain things, just like it might be hard to build a matter transport device, but it doesn’t mean you can’t do it. You, Mark, Nik and, I am sure, others have this defeatist view about beliefs like they are forced on us. Seriously guys?! Who is forcing you to believe certain things? I am going to once again call Bull and say, you are just trying to escape responsibility for something you are clearly in control of.
As for the argument that my above argument is tricking God, I just go back to the same comment I made before. That does not contradict my argument, it only adds to it. While my argument states that you are better off than the non-believers by believing in Heaven and Hell, you are saying that you would be EVEN better off by believing in Heaven and Hell for a specific set of reasons.
The End.
yes, obviously there is more utility in heaven than hell. good bad whatever. but what i meant referred to the utility of carrying out the peripheral variables accompanying belief/religion. if it were as simple as saying "go right for good things and left for bad things," well, there wouldn't really be an argument at all. what makes the argument is considering WHY everyone isn't just going right.
ReplyDeletei also think it is really difficult to discuss an argument on heaven/hell involving atheists/agnostics without spending a substantial portion of the essay discussing the differences in how people perceive a higher power. to me, that perception directly affects (and is the root of) my thoughts on heaven/hell, and the utility value placed on it.
i don't think your argument is wrong by any means, it totally makes sense. i just see too many variables to accept it as being that simple.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDan I want to see this math sheet you speak of.
ReplyDeleteWritten with the greatest amount of anguish and concern for my own words and how they are received by the author of the post. I don't know you and I don't want to come off as an ass and would be more than happy to carry on this discussion in person so as not to confuse my words as anything other then how they are intended...=) Religion is hard enough to talk about in person.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the wager argument has much merit. First, I don't believe we can extract data from non-data. Using probability when making a bet works because the ace of spades actually exists, and has a limited number of times at which it can appear within a deck of cards (data.) The existence of God/No God/Heaven/Hell, are not cards in a deck. They don't exist and we thereby can not treat them as data to base further reason upon. Really we should look at the existence of god or the non existence of God as non-data. Also, I'm pretty sure I can gather what the math on this would look like and I would "wager" that if we were not to simplify the belief in God to one religion the argument would collapse.
If nothing else, I did appreciate the irony throughout the post.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"First, I don't believe we can extract data from non-data."
ReplyDeletethat is exactly where im at. thanks for the posts!
Rita, I will send it over to you.
ReplyDeletePhilip, I don't want you to go through any anguish, and your words are well received. I disagree with you though because you are making a huge assumption that we actually do have real data at our fingertips. I get super frustrated with this confidence that we "know" certain things. I blame it on elementary school where they taught us that things were one way or another, when really, we only have evidence that things might be one way vs. another. I am going to get a little philosophical here, but I don’t want you to write it off because I really believe that people take too many things for granted.
We don’t actually know any “data” exists at all. We choose to believe that things exist because it makes the most sense and it helps us live lives that aren’t completely worthless. Now I am definitely not saying that nothing exists or that anyone should live their lives as if nothing exists. I am merely stating that you cannot prove that anything exists (Descartes and other philosophers have tried, but to relatively little effect). Think about any “knowledge” you have and really break it down. When you do, you find that it relies on several huge assumptions (e.g., that our senses perceive reality, that the reality we experience is real, that the information we have gathered through our senses is accurate, that the information we have gathered from other sources is trustable, etc.). Again, I am not saying that you shouldn’t be relying on those assumptions, but you should understand that they are indeed assumptions.
So what does that give us? Well, it means that we have to base our beliefs and actions on probabilities. We should behave as if the world exists because, based on our experiences, it is more likely than not that it does. We should behave as if the ace of spades is one of the cards in the deck of cards because, based on our experiences, it is more than likely than not that it is. We rely on probabilities, even if we don’t know the exact odds, to determine what the best courses of actions are (even if we don’t realize we are doing it).
In the end, there is the chance that the ace of spades does not exist, and while we will probably discount that chance to nothing because it is so unlikely, the chance still exists. In the same way, there is a chance that God exists, even it is extremely small. In my mathy spreadsheet, I apply probabilities to the chance that Heaven and Hell exists. While, I agree that the probabilities are completely arbitrary, the interesting thing comes when you push all the likelihood to Heaven and Hell NOT existing. Even when you apply that probability (e.g., 99.9999%), you still get more utility from believing in Heaven and Hell than not. The reason being, as I described in my post, that you get nothing if you are correct and you have the risk of hell if you are not correct (even if that risk is exceptionally small). Maybe I can get the spreadsheet with the math sent out to the group for analysis.
In the end, what I am saying is that every piece of knowledge you have is “non-data” as you call it, so all you can do is base decisions on expected values.
As for your “wager” that my argument would collapse if you account for multiple beliefs in God, it doesn’t. If you account for multiple beliefs in Heaven and Hell (I am not talking about beliefs in God), you find that belief in each one has the same utility (unless probability is adjusted toward one, in which case the one with the higher probability has the higher utility). The really interesting part is that each belief (in Heaven and Hell) always has a higher probability than non-belief.
I hope that my response doesn’t put you off too much. I get frustrated when people pull the “but what if we don’t exist?” argument, but in this case, I wanted to raise the question to demonstrate that we can’t treat things we think we know as “data.”
Well I was talking about heaven and hell to my grandmother yesterday, and we both have heard many stories of people who have had near-death experiences. Many of these people who almost made it to the afterlife almost always describe a sense of peace, seeing pearly gates, and angel, or a loved one saying "It's not your time yet!" Why don't you ever hear of people who almost die see the gates of hell and the flames of Satan?
ReplyDeleteRITA, SUCH A FUCKING GOOD POINT.
ReplyDeleteI actually wondered the same thing. There is a website, http://www.near-death.com , that has some pretty comprehensive descriptions of several peoples' near-death experiences. Some people actually do have Hellish experiences after their brain stops functioning. Scary stuff where they get lured into the dark then torn apart by demons. Howard Storm's experience is particularly interesting: http://www.near-death.com/storm.html
ReplyDeleteAnyway, this is more of an aside as no one can really prove that the experiences are real or not, but it is definitely interesting to think about.
and all we have to base truth on is the experience and testimony of others. and even to that we have to pick and choose.
ReplyDeleteill definitely check out that site, daniel! thanks for bringing it up!
I hope not to offend with my thoughts, but I take issue with the premise and assumptions of the argument that, for me, render the whole resulting conclusion flawed. As an atheist I slightly offended at the generalist. Assumptions to "irrational beliefs" shows lack of understanding of the counter-argument. And to assume that you know ALL the criticisms to your argument, enough to say that "they are all stupid", displays arrogance. I;m sure this was not intended but it was how I read it.
ReplyDeleteAtheism is NOT a belief that you can dismiss like all those other "wrong" beliefs of all those other people who got born into the wrong religions and such.
We don’t have faith nor a religion. We base our conclusions on the available evidence. We do not take a leap of faith beyond those probabilities. And since to have a religion one must believe in supernatural beings and forces, we cannot be labeled as religious in any meaningful sense. As an atheist I do not claim to know with certainty that a god of some kind doesn’t exist. Not even Richard Dawkins or Victor Stenger thinks it’s impossible that a god of some kind exists. I do think the God hypothesis is unnecessary and irrelevant to life though. I personally believe that IF there is a God, (he) is not a personal God, i.e. does not intervene in our lives and is not knowable. Thus I cannot live my life in accordance to proclamations of others to have been "revealed" exclusive information to others. Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. You can believe whatever you want-- but if you want us to take your beliefs more seriously than you take what others believe in, you would need to give us the kind of evidence that you would require from them to take their beliefs seriously.
This also relates to "Heaven and Hell" as it also becomes not knowable within these parameters.
Since we know we as humans did not create the creation or ourselves, yet we and the creation do exist, it is logical to believe that God, or an Eternal Cause or Creator created us. This belief has absolutely nothing to do with revealed religion. In fact, all the absurdities of revealed religion are responsible for many sincere thinking people to reject and close their minds to rational logic.
Now not all atheists are metaphysical naturalists, but those who conclude that metaphysical naturalism is the best explanation of the available evidence do not have religious faith of any kind. Probably the best definition of religious faith is that it's an irrational leap over the probabilities, that it goes beyond what the probabilities lead us to think. Science by contrast is based on the probabilities. When there is sufficient evidence for a conclusion then it is emphatically not based on faith. Atheists simply refuse to accept something unless there is sufficient evidence for it. Now it's true that there are some great mysteries to be solved with regard to the origin of existence and of life. But atheists are willing to wait on the advancement of science since it has solved so many mysteries in the past. That is not faith or religious faith at all. This is where atheists and agnostics share the same grounding. Neither group thinks there is sufficient evidence to believe in any one or more proposed gods. Where we part ways is that atheists think these mysteries will be solved based on the probable progress of science whereas agnostics won't speculate until science has answered these questions to a greater degree than they have. It's just that atheists, given the lack of sufficient evidence to believe in one or more supernatural beings or forces, it's probable that metaphysical naturalism is the case. I'd say my atheism is identical to your lack of belief in fairies, Scientology, Zeus, etc. I doubt you even consider these beliefs.
DeleteSkeptical people expect the things that exist to be distinguishable from things that don't exist. Theists expect the same-- except they have excuses when it comes to their particular delusions because they've been told that god is testing their faith - faith is a salvation worthy virtue - despite the lack of evidence and so they do.
In reference to this post, lets address "utility." Assumptions arise here as well in that the argument fails to address other factors in the formula used to arrive at a final value of utility. Value is relative to the person (one mans trash…) as well as saying one person's life is "happier" than another person. "Demonstrably false" also needs demonstration, not assumption. You fail to address any sacrifices that would also be factored in.
Also, Pascal's beneficial argument to support belief in a God (Pascal was actually specific about meaning the Christian God) also works to support the evil Egyptian god Set (Seth), and the Greek gods Minos, Styx, Tartaros and Thanatos. Not to mention the religions who would eternally reward nonbelievers, like Univeralism. Or Allah, who punishes nonbelievers eternally. And that counterexample also doesn't concede internal Christian struggles, such as exclusive High Calvinism (the belief that only Calvinists will be Saved), Church of Christ exclusivity, denominations which lack belief in Hell, and so on.
Hope this isn't venting, but to say that Atheists and Agnostics need to put on their reason hats, just pick one religion, and believe it, just doesn't logically make sense when those titles refer to the suspension of belief. That last line was so ludicrous that I had to comment.
BAM! Atheist!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, that's cool I guess. I appreciate the explanation of what Atheism and Agnosticism are. I wasn't talking about what they are though. I was talking about the net gain from believing in them.
I had a feeling that someone would pull the whole pleasure-relativity card... "One man's trash..." Well Bull. Yes, some people prefer Mounds over Almond Joys, but there is a feeling within all of us, or at least the possibility of a feeling within all of us of fulfillment and joy. There is also a feeling within all of us of dread and pain. Also, we are talking about heaven here, clearly, if you give me that a place like heaven could exist, you can give me that in that place, everyone is happy eternally.
More to the point however, you keep on bringing up probabilities, and that's all I was getting at. The probability of winning the lottery is very low, but people still play it because the payout is big. Now in economic terms, playing the lottery is irrational unless the expected value (Payout multiplied by the chance of winning) is greater than the buy in (the cost of a ticket). So for instance, if the odds of winning the lottery were 100,000,000 to 1, then if the Lottery pool ever exceeds $100,000,000, it is rational to buy in at $1.
Heaven isn't the lottery though, in fact heaven is, in theory, infinitely better than the lottery with a payout of infinite utility. Thus, regardless of the cost to buy in, it would still make sense to purchase the ticket (which, like you said, varies by religion).
The payout you get from Atheism and Agnosticism however, is much, much much smaller than that. Basically, it is whatever joy you have on earth in the 80 years you get here that you would not have gotten from being a theist. I do not see how a atheist could be much much happier than a theist, but in theory, I guess he could.
I want to repeat this though, because I believe it is the main point of my article: "if the Atheist is right, they get nothing and if he is wrong, he either lucks into the Heaven of a merciful God, or is condemned to the Hell of a vengeful God."
If the theist (of a theism with Heaven and Hell) is right however, he goes to heaven and if he is wrong, he either gets nothing (if the atheist is right), goes to heaven of a different merciful God, or Hell of a different Vengeful God.
The math adds up in favor of theism. It is like buying into a lottery with an infinite payout.
The other stuff you mentioned, while interesting, is off topic. My argument is that you get a higher payout with belief in Heaven and Hell. Unless you could show that somehow, Atheism gets you a higher payout than the chance at inifinite bliss, then I think I won the argument. ;)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAppreciate the open dialogue. But if this is about winning then I believe I have misunderstood the intent of the blog as a whole. I am only hoping to help others understand the thought processes that are often used when coming to the atheist or agnostic conclusion.
DeleteHaving been raised a strict biblical based evangelical christian, I am willing to debate in respect to arguments raised concerning biblical based evidence. However, without a correct understanding of exactly who this article is written about, the agnostic and atheist, it is missing the context in which this can be discussed. If this article is addressed to only theists, then I understand this to be an "in the club" type message which assumes the reader subscribes to certain truths.
Unfortunately, the arguments raised hold little weight to someone who does not subscribe to the same beliefs. I bring up probabilities because it is being used as argument, and the math is incorrect.
At present, only half of the equation has been discussed. I agree that while the odds are very low, they are still there. But there is an assumption of evidence here. First burden of truth is to show that there is a possibility of heaven in the first place, then what that possibility is can be discussed. To use the example of this lottery, someone is assured to win. The possibility of Heaven and hell is what I am referring to when I quoted "self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it." The only evidence of heaven and hell has been what others have seen or talked about. To an agnostic or atheist, or to a judge or scientist for that matter, hearsay is not evidence.
While in scholarly debate terms it seems there is not a valid opening argument to debate, I will entertain the rest in more biblical terms.
As to the other points mentioned, it wouldn't matter what the payout would be, especially when this theoretical ticket is infinitely more important in the context of a theoretical heaven and hell. A lottery ticket is a fleeting, momentary sacrifice which after the buyer goes back to life with the assumtion that they WON'T win. I know biblical scripture enough to know that if a believer continued living the way the were before, and not according to the rules written on the back of the ticket, then could very well render themselves ineligible for the prize and be blotted out of the book of lottery winners. In the Catholic cannon, there is also limbo and purgatory in their equation, making for many more variables in the "mathy" part described.
And this is not just true of Judaism-based religions. Not all religions believe in the heaven discussed here. Many religions have different classes of heaven, so the great ultimate heaven is still reserved for a chosen few (Mormonism's Degrees of Glory). Others believe that only after an enlightenment can one reach a heaven, sometimes taking many many lifetimes. One consequence of the Hindu and Spiritualist beliefs is that our current lives are also an afterlife. According to those beliefs events in our current life are consequences of actions taken in previous lives, or Karma. More variables that would seem to need to be considered with equal weight to the recently deceased or the one making the bet. If I could research to make a more educated guess, I would definitely pick a ticket with better than 50/50 odds of heaven or hell compared to the other options that would tip the scales more more in my favor.
DeleteTo address the argument "if the Atheist is right, they get nothing and if he is wrong, he either lucks into the Heaven of a merciful God, or is condemned to the Hell of a vengeful God." I do not see what the atheist gets as being nothing. The atheist enjoys the life given by whatever is the reason we are here, and is grateful everyday for the infinite beauty and joy of the world around me. I do not assume there is anything more, I truly feel that is selfish of what we already have. And if I had to make a choice, I choose a much more benevolent religion rather than the biased option discussed here with only two choices. Personally, I believe that if there is judgement awaits after death, I will not be damned for using the gifts of reason and logic endowed by that creator. But I would by the standards used here.
But ""if the Atheist is right, they get nothing and if he is wrong, he either lucks into the Heaven of a merciful God, or is condemned to the Hell of a vengeful God." Not so. Life in this infinite complexity of present reality is forgone for a hearsay-based promise of something better after this life is over.
If the ticket cost a dollar, it sounds like a good bet. But Without actual tender to buy with, 100,000x1 times zero is still zero.
My argument relies heavilly on an excel sheet that I put together to show the wighted utilities of different choices. I would love to explain it more in depth, but it would take up too much text space to do so here. Rita has the spreadsheet.
ReplyDeleteThe main point I want to convey here is that I am 100% correct. I understand why you want to defend your beliefs (Fun fact, I was an atheist for a while, then moved to agnostic, then onto Christianity), but you are betting on the horse with the lowest payout. I realized I was doing the same thing until Excel came into my life. Then everything changed.
Anyhow. I will leave you with this thought here: Everything you think you know is based on sensory input, and your sensory input could be lying to you. So really, you have no great "evidence" that anything exists. You just have the opportunity to choose beliefs that maximize your overall well-being, and Atheism/Agnosticism does not do that.
"The main point I want to convey here is that I am 100% correct." Wow. Just wow. And said while completely dodging all the valid points without rebuttal.
DeleteThis isn't even an honest debate. I joined this discussion only to expand the understanding of others people's perspectives which are apparently grossly misunderstood here. (Kinda like motivating a knitter with a football pep talk.) Not to say that agnosticism and atheism are right, only to shape your evidence in terms that matter to us.
"Everything you think you know is based on sensory input, and your sensory input could be lying to you." By that reasoning, albeit false, then 100% certainty is unobtainable. I trust my own sensory input much than what someone else tells me is their sensory input. I know I exist. My evidence to support that is enough for me.
But I love the contradiction in the space of two paragraphs. If this discussion really is about winning, I think we now know who really "won".
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnd I loved how "Excel" was the affirming connection to religion. To use this as evidence argue about the subject of "just believing in something", this seems very hypocritical. Math does count as a science, not to mention the computer science involved to create a program like Excel- were our past ancestors damned to hell because they were not privy to such a resource as what it took to make "everything change"? Just as Gentiles born before the birth of Christ were damned to hell without a chance at redemption? Am I the only one who sees all the fallacies in these arguments?
DeleteHere. I'll make it easy. Lets again discuss on your terms.
DeleteIn the context of the last paragraph of the original essay, the summary, the main point I took from this whole essay is to "just pick one religion, and believe it."
OK, I choose Mormonism.
I choose Mormonism because I can can still be the atheist or agnostic I am, all the way until I die. And as long as someone posthumously baptists me, I'm guaranteed some level of heaven, saving me from hell. No matter what i do in life.
I choose Mormonism because they don't make me choose. As far I I can see, I don't even have to buy the Lottery ticket- they'll get it for me later. In the reasonable thinking terms described, this allows me to opt out of the question entirely. Without this option to opt out factored in, the Excel in question spreadsheet would be rendered invalid.
Yes. Because my arguments are flawless. Just like Jesus.
ReplyDeleteSeriously though, calm down. No one is Attacking you, just everything you stand for.
Is anyone else dying to know what was said in those comments removed by the author(s)?
ReplyDeleteSean made some very good points in regards to the purpose of this blog, particularly, "...if this is about winning then I believe I have misunderstood the intent of the blog as a whole." I agree. Upon signing up, I imagined an environment where smart, like-minded people can discuss topics of all sorts free of judgment. While admittedly written with passion, Sean has relied on (his) logic and rationality. Daniel, however, -yes, I'm calling you out- has included belittling jabs such as, "BAM! Atheist! / That's cool, I guess." or, "(...)then I think I won the argument. ;)" and the worst, "No one is Attacking you, just everything you stand for." In my opinion, there is no room for such inconsiderate remarks at this place whose purpose is the exchange of ideas. Perhaps we should work together to establish a code of conduct?
Jawad I completely agree. if you have ideas, they should be shared, but acting out like a whiny little kid only forces me to dismiss most of what you will future post.
ReplyDeletea loss of respect has occurred. let's all move on from this post. it went nowhere and is going nowhere.
Woah Woah Woah. Gosh everyone. I didn't mean for this to get so serious. That little winking emoticon was a little sign that I was being playful. "I won the argument" I know that we weren't actually trying to win.
ReplyDelete"No one is attacking you, just everything you stand for." It was hyperbole! Man you guys need to take a step back and just look at the humor in life. "My arguments are flawless, just like Jesus!" Come on! You can't think I am being 100% serious.
Maybe I will take a step back from this whole blog thing. I guess I didn't understand how serious this portion of the internet was.
I understood the playful hyperbole, and no offense taken. I agree though, it it not helpful to an honest discussion. Lets move on to a new subject, as this subject may be more volatile than even I expected.
ReplyDeleteAs for my deleted posts, I forget to spell check first. I know how quickly a point can be lost due to a misspelled word.
And I do apologize for my flippant responses. To be honest, I am at work right now, and I don't have a ton of time to respond to your, albeit valid, points.
ReplyDeleteIf we ever get a chance to talk in person, I think it would be much more of a valuable discussion.
I apologize to anyone whom I offended.
;) <---Playful!
Happy Valentine's Day!
ReplyDelete