Aren't theists at risk? (Carney's Wager)

Awaiting_the_fifth · 08-03-2005, 06:42 PM

I was just reading over the old "Arent atheists at risk" thread after thinking it over, I have come to the conclusion that actually, atheism is a safe bet, and I've come up with what I'm calling Carney's wager:

If there is a God, a maximum of 1 and possibly no religion is correct. Certainly the adherrants of the correct religion (if there is one) will be rewarded. All religions teach moral values and virtuous living while prohibiting the worship of false gods. Assuming everyone has lived a good life (if they have not then the question is irrelevant) the Atheists will have only erred in their lack of worship, while the other theists will likely be punished for their worship of false Gods. Therefore the safest bet is to be atheist.

Take that pascal.

juantoo3 · 08-03-2005, 06:48 PM

Good one, Awaiting!

Of course, if no religion is correct, then everything is pointless anyway, we're all going to "hell."

Not that I believe this, but I do think no one specific religion has the absolute and complete answer. I think the answer lies in perspective, that is, most if not all religions have some of the answers correct, but none of them have aced the assignment. Yet.

Paladin · 08-03-2005, 07:52 PM

I would argue that this wouldn't work for the same reason Pacal's wager doesn't work. Both have an underlying premise that God is punitive and capricious.

Peace

Mark

Freedom of Opinion · 08-03-2005, 08:20 PM

Thanks Fifth!
I've never heard that view of it before, but it does make some sense from a religious perspective. I had a brother tell me once that, since as an atheist I don't believe in god, it was a good thing he(his god) was understanding and forgiving, other wise I would be damned.lol I'll have to share your idea with him.

brucegdc · 08-03-2005, 08:43 PM

I think Paladin has nailed one of the problems with the wager dead on - the underlying assumptions

Ones I see off the bat:
1) Singular god - it postulates one and only one. As any competent mathematician will gleefully state, if there's at least one of something, there's much more likely to be more than one than just one.

2) That there's an "afterlife" of some sort to be rewarded in

3) That the god is jealous and vindictive, as Paladin points out

4) That the god cares what we think/believe.

All of which are certainly open to challenge (since none are amenable to proof either way)... which makes the wager rather less than clear cut

juantoo3 · 08-03-2005, 11:04 PM

You know, maybe it is an invalid rationale on the one hand, but on the other it seems to me to serve as a rather stinging indictment of fundamentalism. Or am I missing something?

Paladin · 08-03-2005, 11:16 PM

I see your point Juan. If we view ATF's idea from a poetic point of view rather than using a pure logic approach it does seem to poke fun at the limited viewpoint of fundamentalism. And in that spirit I congratulate ATF on a jolly bit of farce

peace

Mark

Awaiting_the_fifth · 08-04-2005, 09:47 AM

FARCE?!? How dare you sir! I hope to win a nobel prize for this piece of philosophy!!!

Anyway, to adress a couple of points raised by you learned selves:

Quote:

1) Singular god - it postulates one and only one. As any competent mathematician will gleefully state, if there's at least one of something, there's much more likely to be more than one than just one.

God or Gods, it makes no matter, if you have been worshipping the Hindu Gods but actually the Greek gods turn out to be the real ones, same situation.

Quote:

2) That there's an "afterlife" of some sort to be rewarded in

If there is not, then it would seem that Atheism is the correct course anyway.

Quote:

3) That the god is jealous and vindictive, as Paladin points out

Quote:

Both have an underlying premise that God is punitive and capricious.

Do not all religions, certainly western religions, have God Given rules against worshipping other Gods?

Quote:

4) That the god cares what we think/believe.

If he does not, then there is little point in any religious observances, and so again it would be best to live as an Atheist.

Paladin · 08-04-2005, 02:47 PM

There are in fact several religions I can name offhand that do not believe in a jealous punishing angry God:
Unitarian
Quaker
Unity
United Church of Religious Science
Religious Science International
Divine Science
And there could be more in the east. I remember reading the Autobiography of a yogi by Paramahansa Yogananda, and I do not remember that he spoke once of a punishing God, that we bring our own punishment because of our ignorance. The reality of which you may know as Dukka (sp?)

As far as what we think I believe that God allows us to think as we please, this seems apparent enough.

Like I said, both wager's depend on a special case to be valid, take that away and it crumbles like feta cheese on a summer salad.

And I still love your sense of humor ATF

Peace

Mark