Can we do a dialogue or something on this? I'm no philosopher, but I was a Christian for 15 years and I don't really get what explanative power theism adds here. Like yes, I can lump all my confusions into a box named god, but how does that help?
I’d be happy to. Well, if we’re Bayesian, and there’s some event that theism could explains while naturalism has more trouble with, that’s be evidence for theism.
I have a soft spot for K, for Narrative Theodicies. Notice the implications for Utilitarian calculations. An act that seems non-maximizing, when we consider only its Earthly effects, might be maximizing once we take the Eternal Storytelling Circle into account. "Remember the time we rescued the Kid from Omelas?" might make a better Tale than "Remember when we persisted in Omelas unto Entropic decline?" If Earthlife is but a Day dwarfed by Eternity, it might not matter whether Omelas persisted for 10 years or 10,000 years; but it will matter "how the story ended".
Of course, more needs to be said here on why Rescue is the better story! Doing the mundanely maximizing thing seems, ha ha, rather "utilitarian" compared to the Heroic rescue, to the Deed that echoes in Eternity. But perhaps if I were more clearthinking in my Utilitarianism, I'd find the "Used kid as battery till battery wore out" more satisfying a Narrative.
I found that defense of Pascal’s Wager fascinating. Claiming that the wager holds gets at the distinction between an argument surviving at it showing what its proponents want to show—it shows that you should believe in /something/, but that something is not especially likely to be Christianity. Christianity gets a leg up in the probability calculus by being the currently dominant religion, and one of the only ones making that style of infinite reward/punishment claims, but as soon as someone says that the belief has to be true faith our Pascalian mercenaries will say “oh! Thanks for the heads up. I’ll go believe in the next most likely God, then.”
I also had a quibble with the framing of the first objection (spoiler: upon further reflection I don’t think this change meaningfully affects the outcome). It’s not just that there are N other possible gods, but that there are infinite other possible gods, ALL of whom will punish you with eternal torment for disbelieving in them! There are also infinite other possible gods with every other evaluation system.
That makes the odds of actually receiving infinite rewards less likely, but I don’t think it defeats the basic conclusion that you should try to endorse the likeliest, most shallow-belief-infinite-rewarding god.
Actually, maybe the stronger first objection works? If it casts enough radical uncertainty on the calculus, does it make sense to then throw your hands up and say “I’m just gonna maximize my utility under this streetlight.” (i.e. in the way that wager-rejectors advocate)? Maybe someone better-versed in probability theory can answer that one.
Various people wrote about it in private diaries and under oath. Joseph faced significant persecution because of it, benig accused of witchcraft and repeatedly fired.
Can we do a dialogue or something on this? I'm no philosopher, but I was a Christian for 15 years and I don't really get what explanative power theism adds here. Like yes, I can lump all my confusions into a box named god, but how does that help?
I’d be happy to. Well, if we’re Bayesian, and there’s some event that theism could explains while naturalism has more trouble with, that’s be evidence for theism.
My email is untrappedzoid@gmail.com
Your email made me laugh out loud
I have a soft spot for K, for Narrative Theodicies. Notice the implications for Utilitarian calculations. An act that seems non-maximizing, when we consider only its Earthly effects, might be maximizing once we take the Eternal Storytelling Circle into account. "Remember the time we rescued the Kid from Omelas?" might make a better Tale than "Remember when we persisted in Omelas unto Entropic decline?" If Earthlife is but a Day dwarfed by Eternity, it might not matter whether Omelas persisted for 10 years or 10,000 years; but it will matter "how the story ended".
Of course, more needs to be said here on why Rescue is the better story! Doing the mundanely maximizing thing seems, ha ha, rather "utilitarian" compared to the Heroic rescue, to the Deed that echoes in Eternity. But perhaps if I were more clearthinking in my Utilitarianism, I'd find the "Used kid as battery till battery wore out" more satisfying a Narrative.
I found that defense of Pascal’s Wager fascinating. Claiming that the wager holds gets at the distinction between an argument surviving at it showing what its proponents want to show—it shows that you should believe in /something/, but that something is not especially likely to be Christianity. Christianity gets a leg up in the probability calculus by being the currently dominant religion, and one of the only ones making that style of infinite reward/punishment claims, but as soon as someone says that the belief has to be true faith our Pascalian mercenaries will say “oh! Thanks for the heads up. I’ll go believe in the next most likely God, then.”
I also had a quibble with the framing of the first objection (spoiler: upon further reflection I don’t think this change meaningfully affects the outcome). It’s not just that there are N other possible gods, but that there are infinite other possible gods, ALL of whom will punish you with eternal torment for disbelieving in them! There are also infinite other possible gods with every other evaluation system.
That makes the odds of actually receiving infinite rewards less likely, but I don’t think it defeats the basic conclusion that you should try to endorse the likeliest, most shallow-belief-infinite-rewarding god.
Actually, maybe the stronger first objection works? If it casts enough radical uncertainty on the calculus, does it make sense to then throw your hands up and say “I’m just gonna maximize my utility under this streetlight.” (i.e. in the way that wager-rejectors advocate)? Maybe someone better-versed in probability theory can answer that one.
A conspiracy doesn’t fit the facts of the case with hundreds of eyewitnesses, various reports in diaries, and so on.
Various people wrote about it in private diaries and under oath. Joseph faced significant persecution because of it, benig accused of witchcraft and repeatedly fired.
Interesting thoughts. My email is untrappedzoid@gmail.com