Islam: Is it inherently Evil?

[DeepState]

Pascal's wager is flawed,

Firstly it is based on there only being two options, but really there are thousands of different versions of gods,

So the first flaw is that you may pick the wrong god, and just make the real god madder, most of the religions have the largest sin as being worshipping a false god, if the Muslims are right, and you have been worshipping Jesus, your screwed.

The second flaw is that its not a free bet, if you really want to get to heaven, you have to give up things in this life and perhaps even reject people whom you would live a better life by embracing. Giving up things in this life is a real cost.

The third flaw, is that Pascal's wager assumes you can fool a god into letting you into heaven by offering half assed belief.

Pascal did not specify which God. Only God. Not THE God. Just, God. You can have the God of green frogs etc. His wager only allows for the selection of one. It is silent on the process and the outcome of doing this.

If there is a God and the possibility of non belief brings severe consequences then, without knowing the identity for certain, it is still logically sensible to believe in one. Not believing in any brings zero chance of salvation. For the possibility to exist of some other true God to punish you upon arrival in the afterlife to be a factor, you must first believe in the presence of a God...here we are again. You just can't tell which. But if you do not choose, you're totally cactus anyway. If you disagree, you are actually digging into Pascal by acknowledging that there is a God with some probability, but the choice is hard to get right. True, but not making a choice, the best you can make, is to say that none exist. Pascal can't be sure of that. If you want to attack something, this would be the thing.

Pascal did not say it was a free bet. It was simply a bet whose cost was small relative to the potential consequences. Relative to eternal damnation, most things look like small inconveniences or sacrifices - they are not free.

Pascal makes no comment on half-arsed beliefs. He states in belief of God. The wager requires providing the conditions required to attain salvation. It is you who presume his/others' beliefs in God are half-arsed. There are many pathways to becoming religious and to believe in (a) God. One is the decision to believe, or suspension of disbelief, however derived. Pascal is saying that rationality would lead you to make a choice in favour of believing in some God and acting in concert with those beliefs. Does the threat of eternal damnation for non-belief appear in various forms somewhere? Hell and stuff? In any case, his statement that you must actually believe in God and God needs to exist for this to work is hardly a flaw. If your (half-arsed) belief is not of the type that the true God requires for entry, you don't get entry rights. How is his argument flawed, exactly? It may be that someone's attempt at executing his argument doesn't meet the grade. The argument stands aside from the competency of the implementation. The argument is not flawed.


The strange cases are where there is a God, but He takes you in no matter what. For Pascal, that would mean that you are either deliberately doing what you do in the knowledge that God is open-minded and will accept you unconditionally even if you believe in another false God. Or, the funny twist, you do not believe in God, live your life accordingly, and yet God exists and takes you in. Belief was not a requirement at all as a condition of entry. This is Pascal by accident.

Neither of the two above lead to a conclusion that belief in some God isn't a rational choice to make.

 

[Value Collector]

Pascal did not specify which God. Only God. Not THE God. Just, God. You can have the God of green frogs etc. His wager only allows for the selection of one. .

That's exactly my point, people that use pascals wager seem to think its a two way bet, heads they win, tails they lose. However this isn't the case, there thousands of versions of gods and thousands of heavens and thousands of hells.

Say you agree with Pascal and decide to follow the religion which by random chance you were raised in, in no way have you covered ass, because choosing the wrong god would be just as bad, or in a lot of religions worse than choosing none.

If there is a God and the possibility of non belief brings severe consequences then, without knowing the identity for certain, it is still logically sensible to believe in one. Not believing in any brings zero chance of salvation.

So does believing in the wrong one.

Pascal did not say it was a free bet. It was simply a bet whose cost was small relative to the potential consequences. Relative to eternal damnation, most things look like small inconveniences or sacrifices - they are not free.

giving up things in this life, the one and only life we know for sure exists, is not a small cost, It's a huge cost depending on which faith you fall into. Imagine being in a faith that caused you to reject your children because they were gay, that's not a small cost.

He states in belief of God. The wager requires providing the conditions required to attain salvation. It is you who presume his/others' beliefs in God are half-arsed

.

he is suggesting that a person that doesn't believe, should just start believing to be safe, But belief is not really a choice, your either convinced or your not. If an atheist just started believeing to be safe, that would be half assed.

There are many pathways to becoming religious and to believe in (a) God.

Yes, They can't all be right though, but they could all be wrong.

The argument is not flawed.

Yes it is.

 

[Weatsop]

Yeah, Pascal's wager is also pretty gutless. If god is such an arbitrary ********, where he tortures people for eternity if they guess wrong in an impossible guessing game, we should be resisting him, not worshipping the bastard.

...there's another flaw that VC didn't go into: if you are "believing" in god because of Pascal's Wager, then you DON'T believe in god, you're just saying you do in case it'll give you a free pass. In other words, you're going around lying about your belief in god. Which seems more likely to bring about eternal damnation that just being honest.

If you believe in god, Pascal's Wager isn't necessary. If you don't believe, Pascals Wager will not sufficient. It might make you (rationally) pretend to believe, but it can't convince anyone of the reality of god any more than I could convince you that magical invisible unicorns exist by threatening to hit you with a stick if you don't believe.

It's gutless AND pointless.

 

[darkhorse70]

haha VC, but in my interpretation of religion, a Muslim, Jew and Christian ETC all believe in the same god with some minor differences. Why? Because I believe people exploited some parts of the books. So your getting more bang for your buck. Increasing odds shall we say haha

What am I really sacrificing?

Not committing adultery?
Not stealing, killing, lying etc.

Yes I eat bacon haha but most rules in the bible are pretty rational.
How can we even measure the extent of believing?
If I dig deep enough in any theory then holes will emerge.

I actually just read that we have 20 some thing senses or more. What a coincidence.

My conclusion: I bet if any one of you were on the verge of death you'd get on your knees and pray. My friend that's lost in the blue mountains for 3 weeks didn't believe In god, but ill tell you what. I reckon he did pray to a higher power before what ever has happened to him.

 

[darkhorse70]

By the way when I meant we cant be destroyed in the form of energy, how do we know that our "soul" doesn't have energy.

 

[Value Collector]

By the way when I meant we cant be destroyed in the form of energy, how do we know that our "soul" doesn't have energy.

The question you have to answer first is, How do we know we have souls, I mean all evidence suggests that what you may be calling a soul eg. your consciousness and personality, are out comes of the function of your brain, and once your brain stops functioning, your personality and consciousness cease to exist.

What your attempting to do is misapply the laws of conservation of energy, as I said just because the energy in conserved in any closed system, doesn't suggest it will be conserved in its current form, just like my deck of cards analogy, burn of decompose the deck of cards and it's energy will be conserved in the environment, but that doesn't mean we still have a deck of cards.

 

[Weatsop]

haha VC, but in my interpretation of religion, a Muslim, Jew and Christian ETC all believe in the same god with some minor differences. Why? Because I believe people exploited some parts of the books. So your getting more bang for your buck. Increasing odds shall we say haha

What am I really sacrificing?

Not committing adultery?
Not stealing, killing, lying etc.

All of those gods specifically say that if you worship a different god, you go to hell.

Muslims and Jews go to Christian hell.

Do you really think people only invented rules about killing each other with help from god? Do you think people were just casually murdering their neighbours and everyone was ok with it, until a big old man in the sky told them it was bad?

Or maybe, when people were making up gods, they put all their laws into god's mouth to give them some extra zing?

The ol' Golden Rule (treat others as you would have them treat you) is found in virtually every culture, and predates any of these modern religions.

By the way when I meant we cant be destroyed in the form of energy, how do we know that our "soul" doesn't have energy.

Because a soul (if it exists) has absolutely no effect on the body or mind, or the universe as a whole. We know your personality and morality are entirely based on the physical matter of your brain, since damage or alterations to the functioning of your brain changes your morality and personality.

We know what makes a person "alive", we are better at bringing them "back to life" under the right conditions, and we know what chemical changes occur that make a person "dead". A soul has absolutely nothing to do with it.

If a soul doesn't effect your personality, and has nothing to do with you being alive, then *what does it do*?

And given there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a soul, why would you believe it exists, other than wishful thinking?

 

[bellenuit]

What am I really sacrificing?

Not committing adultery?
Not stealing, killing, lying etc.

Are you implying that if you did not believe in a God, you would have no personal morality?

 

[Weatsop]

Are you implying that if you did not believe in a God, you would have no personal morality?

There's a great Simpsons episode on that. Everyone is all "Hi, Homer-the-thief!"

Moses comes down the mountain with the commandments, and everyone is all "wha? We can't steal any more?"

I really like how many rules religious folk just ignore. Like, right there next to "thou shalt not kill" is a rule saying you can't ever get sunday penalty rates, ever. Right next the rule against gays, is the rule not to eat shellfish or wear cotton/polyester blend.

They keep the rules they agree with, and ignore the ones they don't like. Oh that wacky god! Always the kidder!

Christians I've talked to say something about how god wants you to use your own conscience. But if you're going with your conscience anyway, what's the bible doing for you? Is it a grab-bag of ideas, like a piece of butcher's paper at a dodgy training session?

 

[darkhorse70]

ok your argument hammered me. But Im still going to believe in god.
But you have to admit that we don't know all the answers to life. We don't even know how the universe came to exist. Where did the matter even come from.

 

[Value Collector]

haha VC, but in my interpretation of religion, a Muslim, Jew and Christian ETC all believe in the same god with some minor differences. Why? Because I believe people exploited some parts of the books. So your getting more bang for your buck. Increasing odds shall we say haha

.

what about the thousands of other gods?

What am I really sacrificing?

that depends how serious to are, but you should probably stop eating bacon and pork for a start.

the things you give up depend on your faith, you might reject you gay children, you might waste years sitting in a church every Sunday, you might donate thousands to churchs that could have been used more effectively in better charities, Some people might even fly planes into buildings, really the poor outcomes are limitless once you throw logic out the window.

Not committing adultery?

Really, in matthew 5:28 Jesus says, "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart"

Can you really say you follow the rules closely enough to get to heaven, but still not give up anything?

Yes I eat bacon haha but most rules in the bible are pretty rational.

So slavery is rational? stoning gays rational?

I actually just read that we have 20 some thing senses or more. What a coincidence.

It's not actually known how many senses we have, the more you look the more you find,

But what was the coincidence?

My conclusion: I bet if any one of you were on the verge of death you'd get on your knees and pray. My friend that's lost in the blue mountains for 3 weeks didn't believe In god, but ill tell you what. I reckon he did pray to a higher power before what ever has happened to him

I have been is such situations, and the last thing that come to mind was to pray, But even so, that proves nothing other than we have been raised with a concept of prayer, and when all else fails may revert back to it, It's not different to people that have developed their own supersitions, eg lucky underpants, or rubbing a lucky coin or anything else.

 

[darkhorse70]

the coincidence was I just stumbled upon an article that revealed myths and one was about your senses. Then you corrected me on my previous statement. Just perfect timing that's all.

Ok, all fair points VC. I cant argue with them.

Good game. Now explain that to my cousin who converted to ISLAM and has caused emotional wreck upon his family with no regards for them.

 

[bellenuit]

Moses comes down the mountain with the commandments, and everyone is all "wha? We can't steal any more?"

I really like how many rules religious folk just ignore. Like, right there next to "thou shalt not kill" is a rule saying you can't ever get sunday penalty rates, ever. Right next the rule against gays, is the rule not to eat shellfish or wear cotton/polyester blend.

Moses and his fifteen commandments.......

 

[DeepState]

That's exactly my point, people that use pascals wager seem to think its a two way bet, heads they win, tails they lose. However this isn't the case, there thousands of versions of gods and thousands of heavens and thousands of hells.

If they think it is a two way bet, it doesn't make it a two-way bet. From what I have to hand about this, once again, he says God. There is no necessity about this God being the only one you could believe in. Pascal may have had a particular God in mind, but the wager does not impose it. Nowhere in the wager does it state that belief in any God guarantees you passage. You have to believe in the right one and conduct yourself accordingly which may include sincere belief, though it might not require it if the true God is half-arsed. The only requirements are to act in accordance with the dictates of the true God.

Say you agree with Pascal and decide to follow the religion which by random chance you were raised in, in no way have you covered ass, because choosing the wrong god would be just as bad, or in a lot of religions worse than choosing none.

Pascal's argument was about eternal salvation and damnation. More damned and more saved was not part of the argument. You could reasonably add it as a supplementary set of considerations (which I would have no problem with), but this is not Pascal's wager. Under a salvation/damnation paradigm, Pascal's wager is correct. Under your paradigm, it is not.

You could argue that his paradigm is junk. However, the set up and conclusions drawn do flow and are internally consistent.

So does believing in the wrong one.

Discussed above.

giving up things in this life, the one and only life we know for sure exists, is not a small cost, It's a huge cost depending on which faith you fall into. Imagine being in a faith that caused you to reject your children because they were gay, that's not a small cost.

It is not a small absolute cost, as you say, but it is assumed to be small relative to eternal damnation. Child and human sacrifice have been part of human culture. Killing and maiming in the name of religion still goes on. If the true God requires requires violence or other behavior that seems odious to us, that's what must be done. Who ever said that the God had to be kind? Do you observe all-encompassing kindness in the world? From microbes to insects to primates and animals to humans? Maybe some violence or other odious behavior was He intended. Any belief which results in a change to your behavior is a cost. There is no real scale that measures the size of cost. It may be that a choice not kill some idiot who hurt your family is also costly. What is the market price for that relative to whatever cost you could come up with? In whose currency?

he is suggesting that a person that doesn't believe, should just start believing to be safe, But belief is not really a choice, your either convinced or your not. If an atheist just started believeing to be safe, that would be half assed.

Foe the purposes of Pascal's logic, I have to take the concept of 'believing' to mean taking the actions required to get a pass through. After all, if belief in God was present, but your actions weren't consistent with the ultimate dictates, belief is not sufficient. Nonetheless, those actions may involve deep and utter belief and devotion to God. Note that these actions may not even require belief in God as per my prior post about the strange outcomes depending on the actual needs of the true God if He exists. You just have to act in concert with the requirements. Who ever said that God isn't half-arsed? That's an assumption from outside the wager. Take a look at the evidence and it takes a little bit of effort to refute!

Per DH70, is it reasonable for a kind and loving, all encompassing, forgiving God to disallow the entrance of some 6mth old infant who died in a piss poor country that never came across the concept of the true and correct God because they hadn't yet mastered the language or developed cognitive skills to figure out how to act and what they believe? If the God is kind...passage would be allowed even if belief was not present. Quite possibly, the same God created the circumstances of the infant's death because...they are God and God possibly controls all...thus all choices made even if wrong are God's doing anyway - at least to a fairly large extent. Belief may not be necessary. It might, but it might not. It depends on the needs of God, which we cannot ascertain for sure. You cannot assume anything for the wager itself. The wager does not impose such an assumption.

Yes, They can't all be right though, but they could all be wrong.

Leaving aside the possibility that the true God is pretty chill and loves all His children whether they believe in Him or worshipped pet rocks or committed Crimes Against Humanity, you are absolutely right.

The point Pascal's Wager is making is that your chances of avoiding damnation are increased if you 'believe' (ie. take actions consistent with the needs of that God) in something that you think isn't a complete joke. Doing so increases your chances of avoiding eternal damnation (with the extent of damnation not considered. Damned is damned).

Your chances of being right are utterly miniscule. However, the chances are better than what they would be otherwise if you did not do anything at all. That is the essence of the wager. It is rational to play.

Yes it is.

Nope. Pascal may, himself, have been thinking of a particular God. His wager does not require any particular God to be chosen. Further, his wager does not require that this is the only God which is possible. He would have been aware of all sorts of religions and prior beliefs. His logic was basically binary...heaven or hell. Not different grades of heaven or different grades of hell. You can disagree with the setup. Personally, I would have no problem with that at all. However, the logic expressed in the wager flows from his setup. As for sincerity, I am puzzled as to why the belief has to be deep and achieved without logic to be valid. If it were so, why are there apologist bookstores loaded full of arguments to support the belief in a particular God? Then, when taken in, why are there often a bunch of texts telling a follower that they will suffer for leaving a religion if their belief is sincere? Those who stay from fear...are they sincerely frightened, or sincere believers? Presumably, those who read apologists texts and become convinced, or have their faith enhanced or preserved, by their purported logic are insincere for they need this because their belief is not absolute enough? Or perhaps they are out of bedtime reading?

It is an assumption, not a flow of logic, that Pascal's wager leads to insincere belief. Sincere belief and insincere belief comes from all over the place. If you just get born into a belief set, are you actually sincere? Or are you just lacking in imagination/opportunity? It may also be that sincere belief is not required. It may be that avoiding cracks on the footpath and avoiding walking under ladders is sufficient to grant passage. Some people are sincerely superstitious. Maybe they are the chosen ones.


That's pretty much all that Pascal's wager is on about. It's just a logical set up and then exploring the flow. It works. Whether you think the set-up is reasonable or not is another matter entirely. As you have done, change some elements of the set up (ie. the true God is a punisher, all possible true Gods require sincere belief without logical or ****-covering motives...) and everything changes. If those are the set-ups, I've got no problem with them. Many others are reasonable too and would lead to other actions. The world and the heavens probably do not follow the dictates of Pascal's logic....though I can't rule it out entirely. The scenario/wager is just a logic-toy. I believe that sincerely.

 

[Value Collector]

But you have to admit that we don't know all the answers to life. We don't even know how the universe came to exist. Where did the matter even come from.

yes, but to think that perhaps a bunch of superstitious tribesman had the answers is just silly.

We certainly not a lot more about the universe now they we ever have in the past, and the scientific gap that people like to fit god into is getting smaller by the decade.

 

[Value Collector]

RY,

I know pascal doesn't mention a certain god, But the fact remains that humans have believed in many, many thousands of gods.

Any person that believes Pascals wager makes sense under this scenario, is making a false dichotomy.

It is not as simple as believe in god or don't believe.

You don't know how many god concepts there are that will punish you for worshipping a false god, but be indifferent to a non believer. so worshipping a false god may damn you in more situations that unbelief, if that's the case, picking a side would not be increasing your chances.

Yes pascal probably was only allowing one god concept into his calculations, but that's the fatal flaw, there is not just one option.

Anyway, I am not really interested in discussing pascals wager, it's been debunked many times, it requires special pleading which is a logical fallacy in itself.

 

[herzy]

Exactly - you're not better off choosing any God than no god. In fact, you're better off choosing no particular god, and hoping for a benevolent one.

The reason is as VC says: each God will punish you for worshipping the false God, but won't punish you for not worshipping at all. So RY, your chances of avoiding damnation (almost entirely a Christian/Islamic view, btw) are DECREASED by making a choice, not increased. Rationally, your chances are better when you don't choose than when you do. It is rational not to play.

 

[DeepState]

Exactly - you're not better off choosing any God than no god. In fact, you're better off choosing no particular god, and hoping for a benevolent one.

The reason is as VC says: each God will punish you for worshipping the false God, but won't punish you for not worshipping at all. So RY, your chances of avoiding damnation (almost entirely a Christian/Islamic view, btw) are DECREASED by making a choice, not increased. Rationally, your chances are better when you don't choose than when you do. It is rational not to play.

G'day Herzy

For a cut and paste into DH's entry, this certainly has captured debate! Let's move it. I'll set up a thread ("Pascal's Wager"). If you want to discuss this, please copy your points in. If not, the thread will just remain blank, I guess. I am curious for your views.

This thing is just a toy, but given you and LT have decided to weigh in, let's explore. I'm curious too. Let's see where it goes. Needless to say, I don't regard VC's view as the final word. We can unpack that as well via third party debunks of the wager. Given I respect VC's views even if I often disagree, I checked a few things out which align to the arguments made. Let's say I disagree with those, even if they are made by very esteemed and atheist debaters like Hitchens and Dawkins. It would be interesting to replay their arguments slowly. They substantively overlap with the clip VC provided, but have some additional bits that are also interesting.

LT, if you want to rhyme in, please switch into the thread as well. You are swimming in the zone, but we should flesh out some parts to see where the thinking is, what assumptions are being made etc.. maybe I am wrong in my understanding of this. I want to find out.

 

[luutzu]

ok your argument hammered me. But Im still going to believe in god.
But you have to admit that we don't know all the answers to life. We don't even know how the universe came to exist. Where did the matter even come from.

It all started with a big bang.
And life on earth is the results of many happy accidents, just like some of us are here today because of accidents. haha

 

[herzy]

Marhaban, RY - I'll join you no the other thread