Atheist's Wager

Yeah, it never convinced me. He makes it sound as if the chances are 50-50, so might as well choose the only one that actually has potential for infinite benefit; but when all the variables are considered, the chances of anyone going to hell are slim indeed.

Very interesting reading indeed. Though, I'd like to suggest that religion and God are not synonymous.

winter wrote:

Though, I'd like to suggest that religion and God are not synonymous.

Well, given the fact that the rebuttal (or "wager") was more about God (or gods) than about religion, I suggest that it is more appropriate to discuss God here. What is religion if no God exists?

I'd say something like: Religion is some kind of organization and/or belief system created by and imparted to humans by other humans.

Though a dictionary would probably say something else.

I don't know about much 'God.' Though I am learning more about life every day. I read this interesting book recently. The writer the debate is not really whether God exists or not. It is whether we have spirit. I understand this argument a lot better than arguing 'God.' Reason is because as a multi-dimmentional creature, the universe within is the starting point I'd like to use in learning about life. Where else may I put my reference point? Ground zero sounds good enough for 'me.'

Edit:
Also, I'd like to add that either wagers were based upon a religious view of 'God.' I say this because of the mention of heaven and hell, which may or may not be a religious concept depending on what the definition is. Since it sound like a universal heaven or hell, then it sounds religious and not psychological or linguistic.

If you define religion as a "system of beliefs", whether or not they include a belief in a "higher being" (e.g., simply a belief in the human "soul"), then it is not necessary to argue about the existence of a god. However, my point was that the above wager was not really about religion, it was about God. Therefore, in this thread, the argument should necessarily include discussion about God.

Anyway, I am happy to hear that you are searching. I am not sure what you meant by "multi-dimmentional [sic] creature[s]", however, I certainly think there is ample scientific evidence for a multi-dimensional universe. Since we very much a part of the universe, we would, therefore, also be multi-dimensional.

Believe me, the universe as revealed by science is far more wondrous than any religion has ever conjured up.

I guess it depends on what science and what theories you choose to think about.

winter wrote:

I guess it depends on what science and what theories you choose to think about.

Not sure I follow?

Thorwald wrote:

Believe me, the universe as revealed by science is far more wondrous than any religion has ever conjured up.

I guess I was trying to say that the above is pretty subjective statement.

Thorwald wrote:

winter wrote:
I guess it depends on what science and what theories you choose to think about.

Not sure I follow?

There are a number of theries that have been proposed by scientists concerning the nature of life and the origins of the universe. Some of these even contradict the other.

There are at least five theories of evolution that I am aware of, the most difficult for many is the idea of Cosmic evolution.

evanman wrote:

There are a number of theries that have been proposed by scientists concerning the nature of life and the origins of the universe. Some of these even contradict the other.

Care to cite these "theories" that allegedly contradict other theories? The vast majority of the major theories of science are consistent with each other (and very elegantly so). Likewise, the vast majority of scientist espouse these theories. Any apparent contradictions are on minor issues are a natural part of the scientific method.

evanman wrote:

There are at least five theories of evolution that I am aware of, the most difficult for many is the idea of Cosmic evolution.

Huh? "Cosmic evolution" is simply the chronology of events from the Big Bang until the present (all a theory, of course). This is not an inconsistent theory with the theory of the origin of species or natural selection; it is simply describing a different subject.

Evanman, it is too easy to throw out all of our dubious claims without ever backing them up with sources. I plan to always call you out on these.

NOTE: I edited "different" to "inconsistent", as that is what I meant.

Well perhaps. Although they may be related, AFAIK, Big Bang and Evolution of the Species don't really cover the same areas.

In any case, Thorwald, I would like for you to back up your claims as well. Namely that "the vast majority of scientist espouse these theories."

Even if that was true, does that make what they "espouse" to be true?

evanman and winter wrote:

Even if that was true, does that make what they "espouse" to be true?

I would like for you to dis-prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does _NOT_ exist. Are we really going to play this game? You know I shall win it, don't you?

Scientific Method
Scientific truth and religious truth are arrived at different ways. Religious truth depends on the authority of texts and witnesses--all very subjective, but a form of truth, nonetheless, that stands the test of generations or is replaced over time with religious truths that make life more comprehensible and meaningful.

Because a lot of people never learn how to do science, they assume that scientific truth is the same...as in "most scientists agree," which is an appeal to knowledgable authority. Or "evolutionary theory says" blah, blah, blah. Rhetorically, such a statement is no different than, "Genesis teaches us that"...blah, blah, blah.

There is a difference, however, when you understand how scientific truth is derived. Although I can build a philosophically-based logic model that demonstrates the truth of the claims found in Genesis, I can't take measures, and test that logic model mathematically. Well, actually, I could, but we've found that such models aren't very robust or convincing. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is the basis for wide array of statistically testable probability models that are quite robust. With other scientic theories, such as Big Bang, there are extremely sophisticed mathematical models that explain how astrophysical processes happen. If you can explain how processes occur, you can also replicate and predict those processes through controlled experiments. In a generation or two, stuff comes out of the lab and we get nuclear power and laser surgery.

Most people don't have training in the advanced math necessary to understand and test most scientific models, but we don't have to be able to figure out everything for ourselves to understand the merits of the truth it contains. There are plenty of experts in the field who will do everything they can to tear apart and refute the scientific claims someone makes. After a lengthy vetting process--often the a lifetime or more, we start to hear things like, "Most scientists concede" that blah, blah, blah is true. That's a different premise than, "I believe such-and-such because my mother and grandmother believed it. If it was good enough for them, it's good enough for me."

Sorry if my little essay seems elementary. I needed to clear my head this morning before doing some data analysis. Sometimes it helps me to think about what scientific method is before trying to do it.

winter wrote:

Well perhaps. Although they may be related, AFAIK, Big Bang and Evolution of the Species don't really cover the same areas.

Um, what? Wasn't that exactly what I was saying? Obviously, the Big Bang and the evolution of species on earth are different subject matters. However, one, unified theory could string every bit our universe (past, present, and future) into a grand theory. And we are working on that.

winter wrote:

In any case, Thorwald, I would like for you to back up your claims as well.

Sure.

In the following references, you will find complete agreement with my claim that the vast majority of scientists accept the modern theory of evolution:

- An overview of the philosophical, religious, and cosmological controversies by a philosopher who strongly supports evolution is: Dennett, D (1995). Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0684824710.
- For more information on the scientific and social reception of evolution in the 19th and early 20th centuries, see: Bowler, PJ (2003). Evolution: The History of an Idea, Third Edition, Completely Revised and Expanded. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520236936.
- Moran, Laurence (1993). What is Evolution?. The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-03-24.
- Bowler, PJ (2003). Evolution: The History of an Idea, Third Edition, Completely Revised and Expanded. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520236936.
- Colby, C (1996). Introduction to Evolutionary Biology. The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-03-24.
- Moran, Laurence (1993). Evolution is a Fact and a Theory. The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-03-24.
- Isaak, Mark (2003). Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-03-24.
- Gould, SJ (1994). Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes. W. W. Norton & Company, 253-262. ISBN 0393017168. Retrieved on 2007-03-24.
- Lenski, RE (2000). Evolution: Fact and Theory. ActionBioscience.org. Retrieved on 2007-03-24.
- Theobald, Douglas (2004). 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method. The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-03-24.
- Dawkins, Richard (1995). River Out of Eden. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-06990-8.
- Dawkins, Richard (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.. ISBN 0-393-31570-3.
- Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited. ISBN 978-1405103459.
- Boxhorn, Joseph (1995). Observed Instances of Speciation. The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-03-24.
- Hoyle, F (1981). "Hoyle on Evolution". Nature 294: 105.
- Thomas, D. Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug. New Mexicans for Science and Reason. Retrieved on 2007-03-24.
- Rosenhouse, J (2001). "How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics". The Mathematical Intelligencer 23 (4): 3-8. Retrieved on 2007-03-26.
- Pennock, RT (2000). Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism'. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0262661652. Retrieved on 2007-03-24.

Your turn!

winter wrote:

Even if that was true, does that make what they "espouse" to be true?

You exhibit a fundamental and elementary ignorance of the scientific method with that question. In science, we don't deal with "this is completely true or false" or "this is a fact" (or any other absolutist statement); we deal with probabilities, hypotheses (trying to prove something wrong _NOT_ correct), and eventual theories that, for all practical purposes, are generally accepted as true (but always leaving the door open that we may one day prove them wrong). This is, by no means, a negative aspect; indeed, it is easily the most important strength of the scientific method and process.

Thorwald wrote:

winter wrote:
Well perhaps. Although they may be related, AFAIK, Big Bang and Evolution of the Species don't really cover the same areas.

Um, what? Wasn't that exactly what I was saying? Obviously, the Big Bang and the evolution of species on earth are different subject matters. However, one, unified theory could string every bit our universe (past, present, and future) into a grand theory. And we are working on that.

winter wrote:
In any case, Thorwald, I would like for you to back up your claims as well.

Sure.

In the following references, you will find complete agreement with my claim that the vast majority of scientists accept the modern theory of evolution:

- An overview of the philosophical, religious, and cosmological controversies by a philosopher who strongly supports evolution is: Dennett, D (1995). Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0684824710.
- For more information on the scientific and social reception of evolution in the 19th and early 20th centuries, see: Bowler, PJ (2003). Evolution: The History of an Idea, Third Edition, Completely Revised and Expanded. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520236936.
- Moran, Laurence (1993). What is Evolution?. The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-03-24.
- Bowler, PJ (2003). Evolution: The History of an Idea, Third Edition, Completely Revised and Expanded. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520236936.
- Colby, C (1996). Introduction to Evolutionary Biology. The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-03-24.
- Moran, Laurence (1993). Evolution is a Fact and a Theory. The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-03-24.
- Isaak, Mark (2003). Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-03-24.
- Gould, SJ (1994). Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes. W. W. Norton & Company, 253-262. ISBN 0393017168. Retrieved on 2007-03-24.
- Lenski, RE (2000). Evolution: Fact and Theory. ActionBioscience.org. Retrieved on 2007-03-24.
- Theobald, Douglas (2004). 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method. The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-03-24.
- Dawkins, Richard (1995). River Out of Eden. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-06990-8.
- Dawkins, Richard (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.. ISBN 0-393-31570-3.
- Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited. ISBN 978-1405103459.
- Boxhorn, Joseph (1995). Observed Instances of Speciation. The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-03-24.
- Hoyle, F (1981). "Hoyle on Evolution". Nature 294: 105.
- Thomas, D. Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug. New Mexicans for Science and Reason. Retrieved on 2007-03-24.
- Rosenhouse, J (2001). "How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics". The Mathematical Intelligencer 23 (4): 3-8. Retrieved on 2007-03-26.
- Pennock, RT (2000). Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism'. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0262661652. Retrieved on 2007-03-24.

Your turn!

winter wrote:
Even if that was true, does that make what they "espouse" to be true?

You exhibit a fundamental and elementary ignorance of the scientific method with that question. In science, we don't deal with "this is completely true or false" or "this is a fact" (or any other absolutist statement); we deal with probabilities, hypotheses (trying to prove something wrong _NOT_ correct), and eventual theories that, for all practical purposes, are generally accepted as true (but always leaving the door open that we may one day prove them wrong). This is, by no means, a negative aspect; indeed, it is easily the most important strength of the scientific method and process.

I can't take a turn, since I have no claim to back up. I'm sure there are lots of things you can win in. Do you need to prove something to yourself? Why go down to the local basket ball court and own some n00bs. I exhibit ignorance. Oooooo... Perfect. That is what I want to exhibit. Think about it.

Thorwald wrote:

winter wrote:
In any case, Thorwald, I would like for you to back up your claims as well.

Sure.

In the following references, you will find complete agreement with my claim that the vast majority of scientists accept the modern theory of evolution:

[Long list of article and book references...]

Your turn!

Are you really asking for this discussion to be reduced to name dropping and appeals to authority, without the need for effort towards actual arguments?

That list reminds me of the reason Project Steve was started (as parody).

Monger wrote:

Are you really asking for this discussion to be reduced to name dropping and appeals to authority, without the need for effort towards actual arguments?

Yes, I am.

Thorwald wrote:

Monger wrote:
Are you really asking for this discussion to be reduced to name dropping and appeals to authority, without the need for effort towards actual arguments?

Yes, I am.

What exactly are we discussing?

I remember mentioning that I was thinking about having a soul or spirit. However, wasn't the argument more about the existence of God? If so, how can you drop names on that one - either for or against? I believe discussion is possible without polarization.

I will propose my point of view. Science that helps us on an everyday basis is useful to me. Science that discusses millions or billions of years in any direction on the time line is not useful to me. I would rather invest in projects that will benefit mankind right here and now.

As for God, well, I think in order to discuss God, first we need to define God. I will begin by saying that my definition of God is separate from my definition of religion. Which is why an interesting discussion for me is whether we have souls and if they are exist after our bodies die.

Monger wrote:

Are you really asking for this discussion to be reduced to name dropping and appeals to authority, without the need for effort towards actual arguments?

So, let me explain what I meant. Winter asked that I back up my claim that the vast majority of scientists agree with the modern definition of evolution. My "Long list of article and book references" were the "back up" or references to my claim. This does not constitute "name dropping" or "appeals to authority"; it was simply a list of references and they should always be included to any major claim.

Anyway, winter is correct: This thread has gotten off the initial subject. My intention for starting this thread was to point out that Pascal's famous wager is flawed (as shown in the article I linked to).

I am not interested in debating the existence of God simply because I believe it is as useless as debating the existence of the Spaghetti Monster. I am, however, extremely interested in the science that "discusses millions or billions of years in any direction" because I believe that the answers it may reveal will tell us a lot about our current state and what we can do about our future.

Debating whether God and religion can be separated is interesting and we can continue with this, if you like?

PS: I absolutely concur with winter that we can have discussion without polarization and I hope no one thought we were headed in that direction.

xFamily

Atheist's Wager

Quick Links

My Account

able2know