Who has money on Pascal's Wager?

[Benjamin]

macgregor wrote: "Benjamin wrote: "but the fact that he tries to use this as an argument just seems like an excuse not to address the issue at hand"

I don't think I understand what you're saying here. Are you sayin..."
No I'm not accusing Dan unless he is using it as an end all be all. I am accusing Dawkins of using it in a lazy manner.

[Артём]

Benjamin wrote: "I am accusing Dawkins of using it in a lazy manner. "

And you, of course, have looked up the context of the quote?

[[deleted user]]

Benjamin wrote: "I am accusing Dawkins of using it in a lazy manner. "

To reiterate, Dawkins has copious amounts of research to his name, a few important books (The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker) and even a few concepts (memes). So it's not like Dawkins hasn't presented an argument that uses its own proposition to prove itself.

At this point, I'm at a loss to understand what is the problem with the quote. When it comes to evolution, Dawkins is one of many experts in the field.

[Dan]

its not a lazy answer at all. its not like he was asked to prove evolution and only gave that answer.

in fact, its not an answer to anything, its a statement. a very true statement and i posted it in reply to someone who was shocked people still argue against evolution.

Out of the his 11 (or 12 now?) published books, only 2 are not directly about evolution. he has written hundreds of articles and has done more for the advancement of the teaching of the theory than most. He is more than correct in saying you cannot be intelligent and deny evolution, its much like he says in The Greatest Show On Earth, that its much like those who deny the holocaust. You have to actually refuse to see the evidence in front of you to deny these things. Of course denying the holocaust is much worse and more disgusting, but we know the holocaust happened because we have countless amounts of evidence that it did, no sane logical person even dreams of denying it happened.

The same goes for evolution, the evidence is overwhelming, you cannot be sane and logical and decide its not for you, its not true, you have to throw out all logic, reason and sanity to go so far as to say "no matter what scientific evidence i see, i don't care, its not true".

Now I think we have lost focus on pascals wager. not that the idea of that is logical anyway.

[Ashvajit]

Thank you friends. How interesting! So many responses to this matter of Pascal's wager. Incidentally, I hold no brief for Dawkins. However, I have some sympathy for his point of view, but wish he didn't proselytise with such religious - and triumphalist - fervour.

As a young man, I thought there might be a god, and I prayed to him. I got no answer that I could distinguish from my own mind. I prayed to Pan. I got no answer that I could distinguish from my own mind. I came to the conclusion that all gods (and teapots, and arguments) are products of man's own mind.

Becoming increasingly interested in my own mind, and indeed, the mind of man, I took up the practice of meditation, and began to study ancient texts that dealt with the practice, and what one might expect to discover from it. I began to see and understand many things that I had not understood before, and - how wonderful - I was freed from the necessity to seek a consensus, since I discovered that the answers I sought were all there in the depths my own mind.

Perhaps this is what Pascal's wager is all about. It's not an argument, it's a suggestion for action, for a way of resolving something. Goethe famously says: 'How can you come to know yourself? Never by thinking, always by doing.' Or, for those who love truths found in the Bible: 'Seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you'.

There has to be a combination of physical effort and serious mental enquiry. And there is every advantage in looking beyond one's present limited sphere of knowledge and experience. Doubt is healthy, so long as one makes every effort to resolve it, and so long as it does not prevent one from acting upon what one learns.

[Rebecca]

Héctor wrote: "The best fiction books are: the Bible and the Corán..."


They're not good novels at all Héctor, the characters aren't believable.

[Ashvajit]

Nowadays, in the 21st Century, the 'God' metaphor is a cliche.