Occam's Razor vs. Pascal's Wager

[samtheflash82]

Wow, that rhymes...

 

This thread is about two different explanations of god and the universe and how the two relate. Before you read any further, do some research on Occam's Razor. I have provided a Wiki link. Once you understand that concept, read a little bit about Pascal's Wager. Got all that? Good, let's move on.

 

Let's first take a look at how Occam's Razor interacts with the creation of the Universe. When we talk about god creating the universe, we make many assumptions. First, and possibly most important is the assumption that a being, deity, force, whatever, created everything. You assume that every single thing (down to subatomic particles) in the universe, a number that might as well be infinite, was brought into existence by this "God". You don't know how or why, but he just did.

 

Now lets try to find the scenario for the creation of the Universe that uses the least amount of assumptions. According to modern science, the Universe is approximately 15 billion years old. That number is all relative to the speed of light, obviously, but that's besides the point. That's less assuming than the God explanation but I think we can do better. Wouldn't Occam's Razor lead to the conclusion that Time itself is infinite, without a beginning or an end?

 

Now let's talk about Pascal's Wager. Hopefully you read the Wiki article and understand it. Take Occam's Razor and use it to slice the Pascal's Wager, the outcome of which is based completely on assumption. Wouldn't Occam's Razor disprove Pascal's Wager simply by the fact that by not believing in a God, you are making the simpler, and thus more true conclusion?

[swansont]

Occam's razor is a guideline, not a hard-and-fast rule. Pascal's wager is simply covering the contingency that Occam's razor is not applicable (or not properly applied) in this case.

[Daecon]

Did you also read the Criticisms section of the Pascal's wager link?

[tvp45]

Wow, that rhymes...

 

Wouldn't Occam's Razor lead to the conclusion that Time itself is infinite, without a beginning or an end?

 

 

I should think a strict application of Ockham would just be "We can measure local elapsed time heuristically." After that, it gets complicated.

[J.C.MacSwell]

God rewards belief

 

Richard Dawkins[19] suggests that the wager does not account for the possibility that there is a god that rewards honest attempted reasoning and indeed might punish blind or feigned faith. Richard Carrier expands this argument as such:

“ Suppose there is a God who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong. That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven — unless god wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy"

Edited March 29, 2009 by J.C.MacSwell

[John Cuthber]

I think Pascla's wager does a fine job of illustration religious bigotry (though, to be fair in his time it would have been exected of him). He only seems to have considered one form of religion and one possible God.

To ignore the fact that there are many "Gods" makes rather a mess of the betting.

If there are, for example, threee major religions then you have a two in three chance of picking the wrong one and suffering etermal damnation for "worshiping false idols" or its equivalent. With odd like that you might as well forget the whole thing

[Phi for All]

Moderator's Note: Do NOT stray into a discussion about religion or religious beliefs. Those are pointless and are against the rules.

[iNow]

Did you also read the Criticisms section of the Pascal's wager link?

 

Further, Ockhams razor has been countered with Chatton's Anti-Razor:

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/walter-chatton/#AntRaz

[J.C.MacSwell]

I think Pascla's wager does a fine job of illustration religious bigotry (though, to be fair in his time it would have been exected of him). He only seems to have considered one form of religion and one possible God.

To ignore the fact that there are many "Gods" makes rather a mess of the betting.

If there are, for example, threee major religions then you have a two in three chance of picking the wrong one and suffering etermal damnation for "worshiping false idols" or its equivalent. With odd like that you might as well forget the whole thing

 

Pascal assumes it's a 50/50, and therefore nothing to lose and infinite heaven to gain.

 

You don't just throw that away if it drops to a 1 in 6 chance that you could be right. (assuming God/No God remains 50/50).

 

Unless you fear "extra" eternal damnation for taking that chance.

[Mokele]

There's a reason we closed the religion forum, and it wasn't so the topics could just be moved to the rest of the forum.

 

Thread closed.