This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Reverse Pascal's Wager
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
TheMediator
Look at it in terms of a scientific experiment, and how you'd need to explain everything that you use in your experiment in order to replicate it. In the case of a non-theistic universe, all you need is the initial condition - enough mass that natural forces have enough chances to spark life and then evolution will kick in and carry it from there to our current state. In terms of a theistic universe, you'd have to explain all the mechanical aspects of how a creator works and how to build one which is much more complex.
Post by
MyTie
Reread the entire post, MyTie, and stop exercising your
reductio ad absurdum
. We all know it works quite well.
It isn't a 'poor critique' to say that an argument is built on assumptions. If the argument is built on assumptions, then it is a very good critique. Why do I need to reread the post?
Post by
Squishalot
In terms of a theistic universe, you'd have to explain all the mechanical aspects of how a creator works and how to build one which is much more complex.
Considering that we still don't know what caused the Big Bang with any reasonable degree of comfort, I wouldn't necessarily say that it's less complex?
Post by
240135
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
therefore, you conclude there is no god, you agree with me, I never said that believing I am most likely correct wasn't part of the reason atheism makes me more happy than theism.
I think Limbero's point was that you're making your choice based on short-term happiness. Not bothering to think about what the future holds after you die is sortof lazy, from a critical thinking perspective.
Post by
240135
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
No, dear. It sounds as if you're comparing evolution to that old Boeing 747 argument. Evolution through natural selection is a cumulative process not blind chance.
Boeing 747 argument? Haven't heard that one before. But I don't think it's actually possible for human life to have evolved solely through natural selection. Evolutionary mutation had to have played some part.
A being capable of creating the universe must necessarily be more complex and improbable than the universe itself.
Why? Taking the mutation line of argument, a being that is the product of another can, through evolutionary mutation, be more or less complex than the parent.
I mean, I agree that it's highly likely, but I don't think it's
necessarily
the case.
Decisions are hugely influenced by emotion, and religious, romantic/sexual, and social decisions are some of the most emotional, this is why reason and logic don't actually convince people of anything
That's why I don't tend to lose much money on the stock markets and other people in my family lose more, because I rely on reason and logic and they use emotion.
but an emotional event can cause your girlfriend to go from loving you to never wanting to speak to you, and back
And why, looking from the outside, we think said girlfriend is a classic looney case and ought to be dumped for someone less instable. Unless you think that said irrational behaviour is something to be lauded?
Even if our decisions are influenced by illogical and irrational factors, that doesn't take away from the 'ideal' that the best decisions are those that are made with a logical and rational basis.
Post by
240135
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
There's nothing wrong with being emotional. But there are things wrong with being irrational and illogical. I'll be sad if I have to make a short-term sacrifice for a greater long-term good, but I know it'll still make sense.
Post by
240135
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
If, as a result of an action, your emotions for the good (short and long term) outweigh your emotions for the bad (short and long term), then logically, it's a positive action.
You can still determine all these things with logic. In Pascal's Wager, we're assuming 'happiness' = positive emotions. We're assuming that infinite positiveness after death is a positive thing.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get across. You're saying that emotions influence decisions, and that logic can't really do so. You've said that logic can't convince a person of anything. This implies that you're suggesting emotions are overpowering and will defy logic. You finish by saying that being logical will cause you to be discontent with life.
However, you're somehow assuming that being logical is at odds with being emotional. They're not mutually exclusive. If you're logically acting in such a way that will maximise your happiness (positive emotions), why should you ever become discontent with your life? I had to leave my girlfriend at home to come to work today. This makes me sad (short-term). But it means that I keep my job, I keep earning, and I'll be able to afford my mortgage and to take her out to a dinner and a show next week for her birthday. This makes me happy (long-term). Overall, I believe it's a positive action. Logically, I determine that it's a positive action. Does this mean that I should be discontent, because I think about it logically?
Funnily enough, the people who regret their actions in life are the ones who either a) took an action rashly or emotionally without considering consequences (irrational) or b) didn't properly consider their future happiness (illogical).
Post by
240135
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I am saying that, hypothetically, if you were to use only logic, and not consider how each option makes you feel, you would make decisions like 'I want to gain as much money as possible, and not go for emotional fulfillment by working on interpersonal relationships because these provide no material gain, and money provides material gain'
You see, this is where the disconnect between your train of thoughts and my train of thoughts are. Throughout the last few responses, you've been suggesting to use emotions as a decision making tool. I don't believe that should be the case.
I see emotions as an outcome to be measured, just like material gain. They're not a decision making tool, they're outcomes. Does money make you happy? That's an outcome. Does love make you happy? That's an outcome. Do you choose money or love? Which makes you happier? That's logic.
If you went with only logic, and dismissed emotional reasons for staying or leaving, you'd stay, since your only non-emotional reasons for staying are the commute and being stuck in the job, while there are many non-emotional reasons for staying.
I hope this shows my point.
It does show your point, that we're not connecting with our arguments. I'll go back to something I said earlier:
However, you're somehow assuming that being logical is at odds with being emotional. They're not mutually exclusive. If you're logically acting in such a way that will maximise your happiness (positive emotions), why should you ever become discontent with your life?
Thinking logically does not mean discarding emotional arguments, because that wouldn't be logical. The way you feel about something, your emotional outcomes affect your utility (or happiness, word used in the economic / philosophical sense). Material goods affect your utility. If your goal is to maximise your utility (happiness), then logically speaking, you need to consider emotions in your decision making. But you can still do so in a logical manner. To do otherwise would be to act in a manner that did not maximise your utility. And that wouldn't be rational.
For example, if you are told that stabbing killing your younger brother will save the life of 2,000 people you do not know, and you have only 10 minutes to make this decision, most people would be unable to stab and kill their younger brother to save those people, unless another event occurs which causes you to gain some emotional involvement in the death of the 2,000 other than the fact that you know 2,000 people are dead and you could have saved them.
Logic would suggest that I wouldn't be able to do it unless I was confident that the 2,000 people would die. For example, if someone came up to me on the street and posited that to me, I'd ignore it and laugh. If my brother was piloting a plane and was aiming at a crowded office building, I'd consider that to be strong evidence that the 2,000 people would die if I didn't do anything, and I would take action accordingly to stop it from happening, brother or otherwise.
All the emotion does is increase the negativity on the side of taking action. It means that I require a higher confidence level, to be more sure that the 2,000 people will die, before I'm willing to take action. But it's still a logical thought process.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.