Author Topic: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]  (Read 1189 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5074
  • Darwins +585/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #29 on: May 28, 2014, 03:45:27 PM »
Nice to see that you're as well-mannered in person as you are when you're writing letters, Dante.

Expected Values are only useful when you only know the potential outcomes of different decisions.  It is like gambling, you know the payouts of different bets, but not which bet will come up as "true."  With this situation, it is a little bit difficult because you don't actually know if the expected payouts are even real or not.  No one is going to know that until they are dead, so it is kind of a moot point.  We only have the knowledge we have to go off of, so we need to use that to the best of our ability.
This is certainly true, and that's why we should avoid basing the decisions we make in real life on things that we have no real knowledge of.

Quote from: Dante Harnz
I also want to point out that it is not very fair to say my paper has 16 assumptions, most of my assumptions are really just definitions of the terms I am using in the paper.  Only about three or four really quality as true assumptions and I put some time into at least providing rationales for them and testing their validity.
I was going based off of your own list.  In any case, the point I was trying to make was not that your paper was unsound because you made X assumptions, but that it didn't really provide any greater explanatory power to justify making them.  Occam's razor is a principle of parsimony for problem-solving; without concrete knowledge, it is better to pick an explanation which has the least number of assumptions, because it is always possible to prop up an explanation by adding additional ad hoc assumptions onto it.

Quote from: Dante Harnz
I do appreciate you considering my article as I appreciate different perspectives on it.  I would also love to hear if you think I flubbed the math anywhere as that would be helpful in me making sure I am not making any unsound arguments.
I didn't see any mistakes in the math.  The problem is that your math was constructed to support your reasoning; if your reasoning is flawed, then it doesn't matter how accurate your math is.  By the same token, you can have the best logical proof in the world, but if your premise is flawed or unsupportable...

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #30 on: May 30, 2014, 07:49:07 AM »
Read the title, knew it was going to be Pascal's Wager. It was.

There is an infinite benefit, the is an infinitesimal chance of being correct: These cancel each other out.

If you truly, truly believed in Pascal's wager you should send me $600.00, because there a very tiny chance I will grant you infinite money.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6879
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #31 on: May 30, 2014, 05:08:44 PM »
Hi Dante Harnz. Resident black dreadlocked atheist commie mommy here.

You are teh awesome for giving us some actual math! I love math. Most of the theists who come here just give us words. I love words, too, btw.

But the one thing I am looking for, even more than math or words, is evidence that what you believe is true. That is still lacking. But not to worry. No other theist has ever done it, either. With a track record of none, it is not surprising that you could not do it, either.

You might want to consider running the same calculations with Islam, since that religion has a much more attractive paradise in the afterlife and, even more importantly, a much worse hell for the unbelievers.

If I had to take Pascal's wager at gunpoint, I would choose Islam over some namby pamby liberal version of Christianity. Allah really kicks your a$$ for not following him. Muslims are supposed to choose death before denying their god, and even kill members for changing to a different religion. Some will even kill you for telling them about a different religion. That's way hardcore.[1]

Stick around. I like you so far.  :-*
 1. At the college where I teach, old dudes from some religious group were handing out free bibles. I just tell them I am not religious and leave it at that. One of my veiled Muslim students politely informed the man that for her to even touch a bible was haram (forbidden). Good for her!
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1345
  • Darwins +97/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #32 on: June 17, 2014, 04:34:14 AM »
Read the title, knew it was going to be Pascal's Wager. It was.

There is an infinite benefit, the is an infinitesimal chance of being correct: These cancel each other out.

If you truly, truly believed in Pascal's wager you should send me $600.00, because there a very tiny chance I will grant you infinite money.

Actually, I am an aristocrat from a west african country. I need to launder a vast sum of money for an implausible reason. If you give me your account details and logins I will allow you to keep some of the money.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11139
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #33 on: June 17, 2014, 04:42:18 AM »
Actually, I am an aristocrat from a west african country. I need to launder a vast sum of money for an implausible reason. If you give me your account details and logins I will allow you to keep some of the money.

Really? Wow!
My name is "Dr. One Above All" without quotes, account number "257 160 006" without quotes, login "1 4M N0T 4N 1D10T", with spaces and without quotes.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline YRM_DM

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 407
  • Darwins +83/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #34 on: June 17, 2014, 07:46:13 AM »
Even if this is a real thing, and the formula had value... you could screw the whole thing up by introducing a new religion with greater rewards and punishments.

The next scientology or whatever, could promise 100 hot partners for eternity and eternal torture for you and your family if you decline, so, therefore, you'd have to believe in that because it'd have the best possible chance of giving the best possible reward and avoiding the worst fate.

If there's a standard that the new religion would have to prove some level of validity first, then, that same standard would have to apply to all religions and we're back to atheism.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2014, 09:39:37 AM by YRM_DM »
You can't spell BELIEVE without LIE...  and a few other letters.  B and E and V and I think E.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6879
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #35 on: June 17, 2014, 05:44:36 PM »
Seems like religions are going in the wrong direction from Pascal.

Nowadays, at least for liberal Christians, everyone and their corgi gets to go to heaven, as long as they try to be nice. Nobody is in burning their giblets off in the lake of fire. What used to be hell is now just "separation from god", which is basically normal everyday life forever.

So, choose to believe in nonsense and hang out with Joel Orsteen forever in Disneyland. Or just keep doing what you are doing. And you get to keep doing what you are doing. Whatev.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Devils Advocate

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Provocateur
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #36 on: October 14, 2014, 02:31:04 PM »
Your math is wrong because it is based upon assumptions that skew to one side.

8.       Let the utility gained by experiencing eternal bliss be a very large number represented by h

Why is the belief in heaven afforded a large number? On what basis do you assign a value of 0 to atheism?

At the very least, there should be a number assigned to represent the value of a better life through atheism (i.e., living without fear of a judging god, relative morality, the possibility of a society where public policy is based upon current reality rather than badly translated copies of copies of documents which no longer exist, etc).

If you are going to start from an assumption that the potential existence of heaven has a greater value than the possibility of a better life here on earth, then you need not bring math into the argument, because Pascal already had those assumptions in his original argument.

I will give you props for not quoting the bible, though...
"Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist."
Epicurus

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3617
  • Darwins +119/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #37 on: October 19, 2014, 04:53:36 PM »

Try a simple substitution.
Lets say gambling in place of afterlife.

Your chance of becoming a billionaire are probably stronger if you gamble than if you don't, therefore gambling is the only logical choice.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12452
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #38 on: October 19, 2014, 07:04:46 PM »
Expected Values are only useful when you only know the potential outcomes of different decisions.  It is like gambling, you know the payouts of different bets, but not which bet will come up as "true."  With this situation, it is a little bit difficult because you don't actually know if the expected payouts are even real or not.  No one is going to know that until they are dead, so it is kind of a moot point.  We only have the knowledge we have to go off of, so we need to use that to the best of our ability.

This is really where Pascal's Wager in any of its forms logically fails.[1]  Simply put, if we don't know if 'A' actions combined with 'X' beliefs will have a positive or negative result if 'X' turn out to be true, then the game-theory reasoning behind the Wager doesn't work.

One must pre-suppose that the religious beliefs involved are correct, for it to work.  That is to say that one must hold belief in gods to yield a possible reward, and disbelief to hold a possible punishment.

But if we already believed that, then there would be no point in Pascal's Wager to begin with; we would already be believers.  A non-believer need not make the assumptions I just described.  Logically, from the perspective of a non-believer, it might just as likely yield a punishment if we believe, and a reward if we disbelieve, because we have not yet accepted a religion that holds otherwise.

Were you aware of this flaw when you wrote your original letter, DH?
 1. Without getting into the "believing for reasons other than truth" issues.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3617
  • Darwins +119/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #39 on: October 19, 2014, 07:22:19 PM »

So, really, you end up with an undefined positive number if the number of beliefs becomes infinite.  This number could either be very very big or very very small.

<....>

At that point, you would have to rely on arguing that Atheism provides more utility while you are alive than the Heaven and Hell beliefs do, which would again be a difficult argument to make.

<....>

(Clipped for brevity)

Hello Dante,
Welcome to the forum.


Infinity can't be a small number, but any number divided into infinity becomes numerically indistinguishable from zero.

So if we have say, five religions and we apply pascals wager we stand a 20% chance of being correct, if none are correct then Atheism is the correct choice.
Your options with Atheism are 50% correct and 20% wrong.  It's either correct or it isn't.  Your odds with being an Atheist are much greater.

If we have infinite choices of religions, and we choose one of them we stand mathematically close to zero percent chance of choosing correctly, whereas with Atheism the odds are still exactly the same.


For what it's worth, if we break this down into comprehensible numbers, there are apparently about 4,200 religions and spiritual systems.  Some are a bit wonky in my opinion, but hey Catholics, amirite?[1]

So lets use 4,200 for your check on Pascals wager.

This gives you a .023% chance of choosing the correct religion for an afterlife plan.
Again, Atheism remains at 50% correct, or .023% that it's wrong.

You will recognize this as BAD MATH, hopefully.  Since the odds on Atheist being correct actually go up as the odds on it being wrong go down.
It's more like the odds are (for five religions) 80% vs 20% and (for 4,200 religions) 99.977% correct vs .023%

If we use vs Pascals wager, we get the only choice worth making is Atheism.  The odds on choosing the one true religion out of infinity choices is numerically indistinguishable from zero.


*edit: ascii code for infinity didn't work.  Replaced with image.



 1.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 07:29:07 PM by MadBunny »
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1562
  • Darwins +105/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #40 on: October 19, 2014, 09:31:20 PM »
The assumption contained in Pascal's Wager is that there is a god who is arbitrarily evil. That is, he bases his criteria on something irrelevant like belief. It is a no win situation since he cannot be trusted in heaven either, and you will most likely dislike the other people because they are chosen arbitrarily.

In game theory, the optimum strategy is to start by assuming a good outcome. If we assume that a god is consistently good and rewards people for the quality of their lives, then atheism is better since atheist countries have better standards of morality. We also have the best outcome with the best god in the best heaven with the best people.

Atheism is also better if there is a Buddhist heaven without a god or no god at all.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline relativetruth

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #41 on: October 20, 2014, 05:52:55 AM »

Assumptions:
1.       Let n equal the count of all possible beliefs
2.       Let a equal the count of beliefs where, if you are wrong, you cease to exist.
3.       Let b equal the count of beliefs where, if you are wrong, you experience eternal torment.
4.       Let c equal the count of beliefs where, if you are wrong, you experience eternal bliss.
5.       Let x equal the count of your belief, i.e., 1
6.       Based on the above, x = 1
7.       Based on the above, n=a+b+c+1


a,b,c,x do not cover ALL possible scenarios.

If you are a Buddhist or Hindu and you are right then you do not cease to exist or experience eternal torment or eternal bliss.
God(s) exist and are imaginary

Offline Dante Harnz

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #42 on: October 25, 2014, 02:58:41 PM »

Try a simple substitution.
Lets say gambling in place of afterlife.

Your chance of becoming a billionaire are probably stronger if you gamble than if you don't, therefore gambling is the only logical choice.

Hey MadBunny,

That is not really true, you usually have a better chance at becoming impoverished if you gamble than if you don't.  See, the expected value of gambling is generally negative.  That is, that the odds you will win multiplied by the payout of winning plus the odds that you will lose multiplied by the cost of playing will yield a negative number.  For example, if you bet a dollar on red in roulette, you have about a 47% chance of winning 1 dollar.  Your expected value is 94 cents, which means, that with every $1 bet you make, you are effectively giving away 6 cents. 

The formula I laid out in my original post illustrates that you net a positive expected value from belief in God and Heaven and Hell.

Online jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2273
  • Darwins +413/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #43 on: October 25, 2014, 03:45:23 PM »
Hey MadBunny,

That is not really true, you usually have a better chance at becoming impoverished if you gamble than if you don't.  See, the expected value of gambling is generally negative.  That is, that the odds you will win multiplied by the payout of winning plus the odds that you will lose multiplied by the cost of playing will yield a negative number.  For example, if you bet a dollar on red in roulette, you have about a 47% chance of winning 1 dollar.  Your expected value is 94 cents, which means, that with every $1 bet you make, you are effectively giving away 6 cents. 

The formula I laid out in my original post illustrates that you net a positive expected value from belief in God and Heaven and Hell.

Dante Harnz -

I assume you're going through the posts preceding MadBunny's.

I still don't really agree with the premise of your math in the first place, but setting that aside for now...

Let me adjust your scenario a bit to get you to see this from a different angle:

Person A and person B walk up to the gambling station.  They each have one dollar.  They are presented with the following game:
1. Bet on x, and there is a 0.001% chance that it will pay out x10,000,000.
2. Bet on y, and there is a 1.5% chance that it will pay out x15.75.
3. Bet on z, and there is a 99.76436% chance that it will pay out x0.84.

Now, you and I are in the casino.  We make a side bet: who will walk out with more money?

A and B can only place one bet in this scenario.  How many times can someone place a bet in your scenario?

A bets on x, B bets on z.  Who do you place your bet on?
A bets on y, B bets on z.  Who do you place your bet on?
A bets on z, B bets on y.  Who do you place your bet on?
A bets on x, B bets on y.  Who do you place your bet on?

Let's loosen the constraints a bit.  Let's say that A and B can only place either one bet or not bet at all in this scenario.

A bets on x, B doesn't place a bet.  Who do you place your bet on?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3617
  • Darwins +119/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #44 on: October 25, 2014, 03:56:20 PM »

Try a simple substitution.
Lets say gambling in place of afterlife.

Your chance of becoming a billionaire are probably stronger if you gamble than if you don't, therefore gambling is the only logical choice.

Hey MadBunny,

That is not really true, you usually have a better chance at becoming impoverished if you gamble than if you don't.  See, the expected value of gambling is generally negative.  That is, that the odds you will win multiplied by the payout of winning plus the odds that you will lose multiplied by the cost of playing will yield a negative number.  For example, if you bet a dollar on red in roulette, you have about a 47% chance of winning 1 dollar.  Your expected value is 94 cents, which means, that with every $1 bet you make, you are effectively giving away 6 cents. 

The formula I laid out in my original post illustrates that you net a positive expected value from belief in God and Heaven and Hell.

Yes, I know.
By the way, welcome to the forum.

My post was a slightly sarcastic way of pointing out that you're better off not gambling, or in this case 'Pascals wagering'.

I like your analogy of using a roulette wheel[1], but in the case of religion, you're not betting on red or black unless you're simply choosing deism[2], or atheism[3]

To continue: most religions do not accept a 'red or black bet'.  You must buy into their system wholesale, which in the case of roulette would mean putting all your chips on one bet, or in some cases choose the correct sect of the given religion.  Given the large number of religions this dramatically decreases your odds.  There are probably a few spiritual systems that let you 'pick a group of behaviors' ala "Be excellent to each other", that would give you a winning bet, but none of the major religions I'm aware of do this.  Either way, your roulette wheel has thousands of spaces, and you can generally only pick one.  I'm not a statistician, and honestly hated that portion of college, but I suspect the odds are very low.


** Yes, I know; footnotes with footnotes.
 1.  http://wizardofodds.com/games/roulette/
 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
 3. properly most atheists are actually agnostic, or in some cases ignostic[1]since as a group we freely admit that we cannot prove there is no such thing as 'any' god.
 1. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=ignostic
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6775
  • Darwins +543/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #45 on: October 25, 2014, 04:43:18 PM »
That is not really true, you usually have a better chance at becoming impoverished if you gamble than if you don't.  See, the expected value of gambling is generally negative.  That is, that the odds you will win multiplied by the payout of winning plus the odds that you will lose multiplied by the cost of playing will yield a negative number.  For example, if you bet a dollar on red in roulette, you have about a 47% chance of winning 1 dollar.  Your expected value is 94 cents, which means, that with every $1 bet you make, you are effectively giving away 6 cents. 

The formula I laid out in my original post illustrates that you net a positive expected value from belief in God and Heaven and Hell.
When you bet black or red, you have a 50% chance either way, unless you are suggesting that there is yet another magic being who acts as "the house."

Also, if there is an island with 10 people on it and they spend their time gambling on games devoid of skill, then in a zero sum game, the money passes from person to person pretty evenly over time.

What actually happens is that a large proportion of the economy changes hands regularly, this depletes the disposable income of everyone.

10 people, they all have $1000, they all gamble $500 until only one person has $5,500. But the game continues and a new winner emerges every week: all that is happening is that $5,000 is not available to be spent.

If, worship is your stake, the time taken in worshipping (playing the game) is time that could be put to better use.

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12452
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #46 on: October 25, 2014, 07:56:43 PM »
The formula I laid out in my original post illustrates that you net a positive expected value from belief in God and Heaven and Hell.

Expected only by those who are already believers.  It is not a shared premise.

Do you have any response to the problems people have pointed out with your reasoning, or are such problems to be ignored?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6879
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #47 on: October 25, 2014, 08:42:52 PM »
IRL, the Pascal players are just guessing at the odds. In the case of religions, nobody know the odds, but people claim to know the punishments for losing. And the punishments are pretty bad. If you do not know the odds, and the punishment for losing is high, it is much smarter not to play at all. Regardless of the possible rewards for winning.

Instead we are being asked to play, and to figure out the odds ourselves, based on very incomplete information --ie tales that seem fictional and have no concrete evidence of being true, and groups of people who all like different stories and who say the stories they like best are true. The religion with the most fervently dedicated believers is the most likely to be true, because nobody would devote their lives to a lie, right?[1]

We are supposed to use that incomplete information to investigate which of hundreds of possible gods are real. After that, we have to evaluate which of the real ones are worthy of worship. Then we are supposed to find out what exactly that god wants in terms of obedience, behavior and so forth.  If we choose the right god, we get a big reward. Maybe. It is usually more complicated--not everyone who chooses correctly will get the reward. It is like buying a lottery ticket gives you more of a chance of winning than not buying one; choosing the right god gives you a better chance at the reward.

To complicate matters even more, some people say that if you don't know anything about any of the gods, and therefore do not choose any, you are off the hook and might get the good reward anyway if you happen to accidentally do what the correct god wants. But if you investigate lots of gods and then pick the wrong one, it is like buying what you think is a lotto ticket, and it turns out to be a land mine or a venomous snake.

The outcome of choosing the wrong god is guaranteed to be really, really bad. If you choose, you damn well have to choose correctly! If there is any chance that the correct god will let you off the hook for being ignorant and not choosing any, that is the best possible course of action. Stay away from all knowledge of gods, because once you start learning about them, your chance of picking the wrong one soars astronomically as the number you investigate increases.

If we all knew for sure which gods were real and what all the various possible outcomes and scenarios were for worship vs non-worship, it would not be a gamble and there would be no need for a wager. We would just go for that one and be done with it. But that is clearly not the case. We cannot possibly know the outcomes or the odds. Therefore, we are smart not to waste serious time on it. Joking around on the internet a few minutes a day discussing atheism with a few people is nothing compared to spending a lifetime actively pursuing a possibly non-existent deity.

There are so many things that have better known outcomes that people could be doing with their time, money, etc. than trying to learn which of lots of different gods is real, worth worshiping, etc. And that is what we atheists do.[2] 
 1. It is like trying to evaluate the odds of the Twilight, Avengers,  Star Trek or Harry Potter "fandom" being true and the only evidence you have at your disposal are the stories themselves and the behavior of hardcore fans at the various conventions. If some fans say that HP healed their acne, and are willing to die for Harry Potter, does that make HP more likely to be true than Star Trek?
 2. Like, concentrating on relationships with actual human beings, learning a craft or skill, becoming good at computers, science, math or writing, studying a foreign language, practicing a sport, raising children, starting a business, caring for elderly relatives, inventing something new, maybe trying to solve some world problem in a practical way.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12452
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #48 on: October 25, 2014, 08:54:29 PM »
If you do not know the odds, and the punishment for losing is high, it is much smarter not to play at all. Regardless of the possible rewards for winning.

In the context of the Wager, we are not being asked to play.  We are being informed that the game has already begun.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6620
  • Darwins +791/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #49 on: October 25, 2014, 09:06:31 PM »
When calculating the odds, it helps to have information. Such data is available at the craps table, or for elections, sporting events and doing things like betting on who is going to win an Oscar. In each of those cases, it is possible to gather facts and statistics and historical data and other relevant numbers in an effort to parse the likely outcome. But even with detailed information and lots of statistical calculations, a person can still be wrong, and lose whatever bet they've made.

Now, with religion, you have none of that. You have multitudinous stories from hundreds of cultures, all claiming to have a god or two or three that, if appeased, will make things better for you. With the christian god, the story is that if you're good and you love his kid and follow the rules (details vary from subgroup to subgroup) you will get to experience some sort of ill-defined infinite existence in a none to clearly described place after you die. But there is no data, no reliable historical information, no way to calculate the odds, no sources to explore, numbers to crunch. There are just fantastical tales that urge the listener to join up or perish. Toss in the many other religions and their promises and the lack of reliable information starts to approach the infinite.

And now someone thinks that the odds are better for you and me if we choose his particular version and his particular take on the odds and such. But he has nothing, just as the hindus have nothing and the muslims have nothing and the zoroastrians have nothing. And the way I see it, 0 x 0 x 0 x 0 = 0, and that's all the information I need. When the odds are that bad, they're not worth considering.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6879
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #50 on: October 25, 2014, 09:16:30 PM »
I loved formal models class in grad school. Can you tell?  ;)
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline wow

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 72
  • Darwins +36/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #51 on: October 25, 2014, 11:34:51 PM »

I have put together the below argument to demonstrate how, regardless of potential scenarios, belief in Heaven for believers and Hell for non-believers will always yield a higher utility than belief in death resulting in the end of one’s existence.  The below argument makes certain assumptions, which are outlined below; however, when these assumptions are tested, it becomes clear that, regardless of what scenarios are possible, the results are always the same: the expected value of belief in Heaven and Hell always outweighs the expected value of belief in death’s finality.
Assumptions:
1.       Let n equal the count of all possible beliefs
2.       Let a equal the count of beliefs where, if you are wrong, you cease to exist.
3.       Let b equal the count of beliefs where, if you are wrong, you experience eternal torment.
4.       Let c equal the count of beliefs where, if you are wrong, you experience eternal bliss.
5.       Let x equal the count of your belief, i.e., 1
6.       Based on the above, x = 1
7.       Based on the above, n=a+b+c+1
8.       Let the utility gained by experiencing eternal bliss be a very large number represented by h
9.       Let the average utility gained by all “eternal bliss” concepts be represented by H
10.   Let the utility lost by experiencing eternal torment be a very large number represented by [h]
11.   Let the average utility gained by all “eternal torment” concepts be represented by [H]
12.   Let the average utility gained by eternal bliss be equal and opposite of the average utility lost by eternal torment,
13.   i.e., H + [H] = 0
14.   For the purposes of this paper, let the cost of believing any belief set be equal
15.   EVB = Expected Value of belief in Heaven and Hell
16.   EVA = Expected Value of belief in Death’s Finality

Proof:
Expected value of someone who believes that believers in his faith will go to Heaven and everyone else will go to Hell:
EVB = (x/n)*H + (a/n)*0 + ((b-x)/n)*[H] + (c/n)*H
EVB = H/n + 0 + (b[H]–[H])/n +cH/n
EVB = (H + b[H] + H +cH)/n
EVB = ((2+c)H – bH)/n
EVB = ((2 + c – b)H)/n
Expected value of someone who believes that he and everyone else will cease to exist after death:
EVA = (x/n)*0 + ((a-1)/n)*0 + (b/n)*[H] + (c/n)*H
EVA = 0 + 0 + b[H]/n + cH/n
EVA = (c-b)H/n
2 > 0
((2 + c – b)H)/n > (c-b)H/n
EVB > EVA
There is a higher expected value for belief in Heaven and Hell than there is for belief in Death’s Finality.


You speak of H and -H as expected utilities. I therefore assume you tried to model this using a convex utility function, given that it seems your goal is to consistently show that EVB>EVA[1]. If not, what mathematical assumptions about the model did you use?

If I understand you correctly;

EVB = (x+a+c)/n)*H + (-a-b+x)/n)*H
EVA = (a+c/n)/n*H + (-a-b)/n*H

The first problem with your model for EVB is that your coefficients do not sum to 1, therefore, it is not a convex model and it can't qualify as a convex utility function. Also, it must hold for any coefficient theta between [0,1], i.e. if A is a set containing only two elements H and [H], then A is convex if for all elements in A (H and [H]), thetaH + (1-theta)[H], must be in the set A. Idem for EVA.

Perhaps you could alter the model, and then we can discuss it, or ellaborate on your mathematical assumption for the model.

Assumption Rationales:
Even for beliefs that posit that a person would eternally reincarnate, the sum of the utility generated over their lifetimes would eventually, over eternity, reach an infinite positive number, an infinite negative number, or 0, which would put it in the same class of “eternal bliss,” “eternal torment,” or “zero utility” beliefs respectively.
 
You are taking limits, yet you're function is not well defined. Also, someone could eternally oscillate between + and - bad karma and reach any real positive or negative number in the limit as well, if the limit of your (assuming well defined function) exists. It could almost be a (biased) stochastic random walk, because you don't know upfront how many karma points someone will earn in a lifetime.
It seems for this group you would need to incorporate some oscillations in your function or deal with this more properly in your assumption.

Assumptions 8 and 10: “Let the utility gained by experiencing eternal bliss be a very large number represented by h” and “Let the utility lost by experiencing eternal torment be a very large number represented by [h]”
While it is very likely that both of these numbers are equal to infinity and negative infinity respectively, because infinity is an abstract concept, I am using a real-number-substitute in place of infinity.  While utilizing infinity as a utility calculation would render the calculations “undefined,” the concept behind the utility calculations is not lost by representing infinity as a very large number (either positive or negative).

Assumptions 12 and 13:  “Let the average utility gained by eternal bliss be equal and opposite of the average utility lost by eternal torment” and “H + [H] = 0”
These assumptions were made in order to simplify the math.  It could be the case that the average utility gained from all possible “eternal bliss” scenarios greatly outweighs the average utility lost by the “eternal torment” scenarios or vice versa.  As we will see below, the simplification of the math has no impact on the results of our analysis.

You call H the average utility. Also, you divide the average utility H, by n in your formula for EVA/EVB, but you already call it the 'average'? Perhaps you could explain, how you express H in terms of h. Did you  mean; H = h/n? How could it otherwise be the 'average utility of eternal bliss', if it definately is a function of h, i.e. eternal bliss.

If H is actually a function of h, which you state it is by your phrasing, then what you're saying makes no sense mathematically. Any scaling of infinity (i.e. h on the extended real line), is still infinity. And if H is a function of h, then H + [H] could as well be undefined on the extended real line.

If so, assumption 13, and again the model would be invalid.

Testing Assumptions:
Testing has no point when the model doesn't work. I look forward to your reply with respect to your model.

Creative idea though  ;).
 1. Concavity doesn't seem likely given behavior of believers in general

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1323
  • Darwins +432/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #52 on: October 26, 2014, 04:17:26 AM »
>snip<
Expected values are a useful tool when outcomes are uncertain.  When different decisions have probabilities of different payouts, one can utilize expected values to understand the planned utility of making those decisions.  Because outcomes of most events are uncertain, expected values can be used to determine which decisions will most likely yield a higher utility.  If someone were to perform the necessary calculations to determine the expected value of two decisions and were to find out that one yielded a higher expected value than the other, it would be irrational for that person to choose the option that yielded the lower expected value.

This only applies if the beliefs you're choosing to "bet" on have relatively high prior probabilities of being accurate.  A belief is only likely to have "utility" if it actually works, in reality.  For example, a belief in Islam will not result in the "payout" of a positive hereafter if [your sort of] Christianity is accurate, or if atheism is accurate.  In other words, the "expected value" of having accurate beliefs is much higher than the "expected value" of having false beliefs, therefore it is in our interest to use the best methodologies we can find, to generate accurate beliefs.

In practical terms, "uncertainty" about a given belief means that you have at least some reason to think it might be accurate, but not enough evidence to be sure.  If you have no reason to think it might be accurate (i.e., no evidence in its favor prior to attempting to calculate its "expected value"), it is an arbitrary claim, epistemically equivalent to meaningless jibberish.  "Uncertainty" in this pragmatic sense does not apply to purely arbitrary claims, claims made without evidence, because such claims offer no legitimate reason to reject the null hypothesis.  That which can be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence. 

If you do not apply this epistemic principle, then you are compelled to "bet" on the "expected value" of an infinity of potential arbitrary claims ("the invisible pink unicorns of Tau Ceti III will bless you with long life and prosperity if you send kcrady money!"). 

Q: Why would you make a long, convoluted, pseudo-mathematical/logical argument like this?

A: Because you don't have anything better, i.e. actual evidence in favor of your position.

In the field of cognitive neuroscience, there is quite a lot of evidence against the notion of an afterlife, i.e., that a human consciousness/self/"soul" or "spirit" can exist and operate after the brain and body die.  It has been abundantly demonstrated that if the brain is damaged, the consciousness is also damaged.  Alzheimer's Disease is one well-known example.  If Alzheimer's-related damage to, say, half of the relevant areas of the brain can cause a person to lose, say, 50% of their memories and cognitive function, how could it be that total damage to 100% of the brain (death) can result in the person regaining 100% of their memories and cognitive function?  In like manner, entirely mundane physical chemicals (alcohol, DMT, LSD, THC/marijuana, ketamine, etc.) can radically alter the experience and function of a person's consciousness. 

On the hypothesis that consciousness is resident in an intangible, non-physical repository ("soul"/"spirit"), why should this be the case? 

Purported Evidence for Non-Physical Consciousness:

The evidence offered in favor of non-physical consciousness (AFAIK) falls primarily into two categories: NDE/OBE's ("Near-Death" and "Out of Body" Experiences) and claims of "past-life recall."  NDE/OBE's do not provide any evidence in favor of "Heaven for believers and Hell for non-believers."  To the contrary, the experiences (most often "Heavenly" in nature, though sometimes distressing or "Hellish" experiences occur) are belief-invariant: the nature of the experience (pleasant or unpleasant) and even the probability of having an NDE is not related to the beliefs the individual held prior to the experience.[1]

"Past-life recall" (claims by some people to have accurate recollections of "past lives" that give them verifiable information they could not have known otherwise) also does not provide evidence in favor of "Heaven for believers and Hell for non-believers," even if one accepts that the recollections are evidence of a real phenomenon.  It could arguably be interpreted as evidence in favor of reincarnation, but that's not the hereafter belief you're trying to promote here, is it?

So, we have abundant evidence in favor of "Death's Finality," and some evidence (in the form of unusual experiences) that could be used to argue for the existence other hereafters (i.e., not "Heaven for believers and Hell for non-believers"), among a number of other possible interpretations.

In short, we have no actual evidence in favor of your preferred hereafter scheme.  To the contrary, the only evidence for hereafters we seem to have indicates that belief is irrelevant, and the most likely hereafter is either "Heaven" for everybody, under the auspices of a loving, non-judgmental "Light at the end of the tunnel," reincarnation, or perhaps both ("Heaven" being a way-station between incarnations).  In other words: We have no actual reason to think your preferred afterlife scheme could be accurate.

Some may argue that, while expected values are useful when making decisions about what actions to take, they are not useful in choosing what to believe.  These people may argue that no one chooses what to believe, but rather, develops beliefs based on their experiences.

To "expect" something is to anticipate that it will occur in reality.  Apart from actual evidence in favor of a hereafter belief's validity, we have no reason to "expect" believing it to pay off. 

A case could be made that willful belief, or beliefs acquired by means of "sleight-of-mind tricks" (hypnosis, altered states of consciousness, the ritual psychodrama of magickal practice, etc.) can yield positive results in some situations.  For example, the placebo effect.  If one invests time, effort, and emotional energy into creating and "enchanting" a magickal talisman to "attract" prosperity and/or the interest of desirable people of one's gender preference, it could have positive effects by inducing confident behavior, body language, etc. even if there are no "magickal supernatural forces" involved. 

However, this sort of thing would not apply to the case of generating one's preferred choice of afterlife.  If "Heaven for believers and Hell for non-believers" does not actually exist, no amount of self-hypnosis or magickal practice will make it real for you after you die.  Likewise, if it does, disbelief in it will not make it go away.

I believe this argument is inaccurate.  If a person does not choose what to believe, then who does?  Some may not feel that they consciously “choose” what to believe, but they are of course in control of how they interpret their experiences and how their experiences influence their beliefs.  Two people may have identical experiences but may choose different beliefs based on those experiences.

Can you choose to believe, actually believe, in the literal truth of the Santa Claus story, even if somebody offered you a billion dollars if you did (so that you have compelling motive to believe)?  Assume they have a brain-scanning/lie detection device that can accurately determine if you're faking belief or not.

If beliefs are just robotic outcomes that are determined by a person’s experiences, then it opens up the door to remove accountability from all actions.

False dichotomy.  Possibilities are not limited to "People can choose to sincerely believe ("bet on") absolutely anything at a whim" and "People's beliefs are robotic outcomes of their experiences."

People can also choose what to use as their basis or method of forming beliefs.  Unless solipsism is true, there is a reality to which beliefs may or may not correspond.  If so, then not all beliefs will be of equal utility (in particular, for purposes of navigating through reality).  If there is a reality, then we have very good reason to want to test our beliefs to determine the likelihood that they conform to (and are thus useful for navigating through and operating in) reality.

I have put together the below argument to demonstrate how, regardless of potential scenarios, belief in Heaven for believers and Hell for non-believers will always yield a higher utility than belief in death resulting in the end of one’s existence.

If you're an absolutely selfish psychopath, perhaps.  Notice how the language of your assertion here only assigns utility/disutility relative to one's existence, i.e., one's own existence.  In order for your argument to be valid, a person would have to be able to experience "infinite bliss" in Heaven without having any empathy or compassion for the people experiencing endless torment in Hell, or having any revulsion for the infinite injustice of torturing billions of people (and who knows how many aliens throughout the Cosmos!) for the "crime" of guessing wrong by failing to "bet on" one arbitrary claim out of an infinite set of possible arbitrary claims, all of which are completely bereft of evidence in their favor.

In short: In order to enjoy Heaven, you must either have to have your moral capacities stripped from you by Yahweh after you die (or not have them in the first place), or you have to be a really nasty son of a bitch.

Consider the following version of the Bodhisattva Vow:

Quote
As long as there is suffering
As long as there are sentient beings in the 6 realms
May I never attain Enlightenment
And never cross over into Nirvana
[2]

This certainly represents a vast improvement over the craven and selfish Christian goal of simply saving one's own ass, toadying before Infinite Capricious Evil[3] and limiting one's "compassion" to the act of trying to get other people to conform to one's own beliefs ("evangelism").  And to think how often you Christians claim the patent and trademark on all morality!  Nonsense on stilts!

As a non-psychopath, I find it difficult to imagine a belief-set with a higher level of negative "expected value" than the claim you're making here, that reality is governed by Infinite, Capricious, Omnipotent Evil.  The options you offer--eternally groveling before such Evil, or being eternally tortured by It--are close to equally horrifying by my calculation of "expected  value."  At best, toadying might seem more pleasant because you're in "Heaven," but you must eternally live in terror of making some misstep, or simply being pitched into everlasting torment for the Hell of it, by a being of such unlimited malevolence and caprice that all the people already in Hell are there because they picked the wrong numbers in the Celestial Belief Lottery.

So, by the "logic" of your own argument, I should reject Christianity.


edit: moved note 2 out of quote to make it readable.
 1. http://iands.org/about-ndes/key-nde-facts.html?start=3  This is a pro-NDE source, i.e., not an atheist/skeptical "debunker" site.
 2. http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/bodhisatva.htm
 3. Seriously, what else can you call a being that would torture people for eternity for making a wrong guess?
« Last Edit: October 27, 2014, 09:48:28 AM by screwtape »
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6879
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #53 on: October 26, 2014, 01:42:34 PM »
^^^^There are so many good points here. I have read some of the NDE accounts, and there does not seem to be any relationship between what people believed about god and heaven, and what they experienced. There are some pretty well-known cases where unbelievers became believers after having NDE's, seeing the white light which they interpreted as god, and feeling the bliss that they interpreted as heaven. This is cited by believers as evidence that heaven or god are real.

Many people report "seeing" dead family members in their NDE. But only people with some Christian background "see Jesus" during their NDE's. People with other religious backgrounds "see" other religious figures. Why would that be, if there was one god, and one heavenly reality?

You would expect unbelievers as well as believers in the wrong religions to see the true god, and maybe a vision of hell if that is their true destination. What NDE's argue for,  is that most everyone goes to heaven no matter what they believe or do on earth, and that everyone goes to the god they know about best. All the gods are real. I don't think very many religious people want to go there.[1]

Here is another problem. If unbelievers are going to get hell, why would god taunt them with a vision of heaven? And if they become believers after the NDE and therefore get to go to heaven, doesn't that seem to be kinda arbitrary of god? I mean, those of us unbelievers not lucky enough to have near-fatal car accidents or to almost die during surgery are just screwed. We get no vision of heaven or god.

When we ask believers why god doesn't just communicate the message to everyone equally, even people who don't have near-fatal accidents, they tell us that god does not want to violate our "free will". This "free will" is presumably to freely choose the wrong thing based on incomplete information, and go to hell. But what is the point of god giving some people NDE's then? Doesn't that give them more information than the rest of us, and violate their free will to choose the wrong thing and go to hell? Give some people an actual vision of heaven and give the rest nothing, and say that everyone has the same chance to choose the right thing? What makes this seem like a reasonable thing for a god to do?

That is like god gives everyone two bottles of pills, one full of poison and one of vitamins. But some people get bottles with accurate labels. Other people's bottles have no labels, so can't tell the poison pills from the vitamins. (When an unbeliever has an NDE labels magically appear on their previously blank bottles.)

The people with the labeled bottles take the vitamins, and throw away the poison. They cannot understand why other people are not taking their vitamins, too. If the people with the unlabeled bottles make the quite rational choice not to take any of the pills, the folks in the first group criticize them--"Why are you refusing god's generous gift? Don't you want vitamins? Why are you being so stubborn?"

They don't seem to understand that the scenario has been rigged so unfairly. That is the situation with believers (who have had personal experiences that convinced them of god's existence) and non-believers (who have not had such a convincing experience. ) People with labeled bottles are yelling at the people with blank bottles to choose one and take the pills, knowing that they could choose wrong and end up taking the poison (in hell).

It is even more complex, of course, because you cannot choose to believe something exists if you do not have any evidence that it exists. In my scenario, at least there were actual bottles of pills. In real life religion asks us to choose from bottles full of imaginary invisible vitamins or imaginary invisible poison pills&)
 
 
 1. That is, if they anything are more than brain phenomena produced by the trauma of nearly dying, which is what they actually appear to be.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1323
  • Darwins +432/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Why, logically, you should believe in Heaven and Hell [#2809]
« Reply #54 on: October 26, 2014, 09:25:29 PM »
^And that's before you factor in the concept of a Devil and his demonic horde going around producing fake mystic revelations, "miracles," etc. in order to reduce the odds of winning the Cosmic Belief Lottery even further.
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina