= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanArmak comments on "Stupid" questions thread - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (850)
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the other popular religions don't really believe in eternal paradise/damnation, so Pascal's Wager applies just as much to, say, Christianity vs. Hinduism as it does Christianity vs. atheism. Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus don't believe in hell, but as far as I can tell. Muslims do. So if I were going to buy into Pascal's wager, I think I would read apologetics of both Christianity and Islam, figure out which one seemed more likely, and going with that one. Even if you found equal probability estimates for both, flipping a coin and picking one would still be better than going with atheism, right?
Why? Couldn't it be something like, Religion A is correct, Religion B almost gets it and is getting at the same essential truth, but is wrong in a few ways, Religion C is an outdated version of Religion A that failed to update on new information, Religion D is an altered imitation of Religion A that only exists for political reasons, etc.
Good post though, and you sort of half-convinced me that there are flaws in Pascal's Wager, but I'm still not so sure.
You're combining two reasons for believing: Pascal's Wager, and popularity (that many people already believe). That way, you try to avoid a pure Pascal's Mugging, but if the mugger can claim to have successfully mugged many people in the past, then you'll submit to the mugging. You'll believe in a religion if it has Heaven and Hell in it, but only if it's also popular enough.
You're updating on the evidence that many people believe in a religion, but it's unclear what it's evidence for. How did most people come to believe in their religion? They can't have followed your decision procedure, because it only tells you to believe in popular religions, and every religion historically started out small and unpopular.
So for your argument to work, you must believe that the truth of a religion is a strong positive cause of people believing in it. (It can't be overwhelmingly strong, though, since no religion has or has had a large majority of the world believing in it.)
But if people can somehow detect or deduce the truth of a religion on their own - and moreover, billions of people can do so (in the case of the biggest religions) - then you should be able to do so as well.
Therefore I suggest you try to decide on the truth of a religion directly, the way those other people did. Pascal's Wager can at most bias you in favour of religions with Hell in them, but you still need some unrelated evidence for their truth, or else you fall prey to Pascal's Mugging.