1101
You lose. (discuss.online)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/atheistmemes@lemmy.world
142 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Pascals Wager was already stupid in the 17th century, it hasn't really improved in the 350 years since then. Why do we need to rehash this still.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago*

    Pascals Wager was already stupid in the 17th century

    The broad existential question was interesting. It's part of a conversation about tail risks and cost-benefit calculations that you can apply to much more than just religion.

    What I find more curious about Pascal's Wager, from a theological perspective, is the logical consequence. Namely, that you're obligated to find some kind of theological average between all known religious practices to maximize your own personal safety. And that theological average largely boils down to generic positive aphorisms -

    • Do Unto Others
    • Live Charitably
    • Value Your Own Life And The Lives Of Others
    • Reject Base Cravings
    • Abhor Materialist Social Hierarchies
    • Turn The Other Cheek
    • Men Are More Important Than Women
    • Slaughter A Live Animal To Appease Primal Forces
    • Wash Your Asshole
    • Remember That Old People Are Smarter Than You

    Shit we should already know about and are inclined towards anyway. When you take a holistic view of religious studies, it peels away the pastiche and reveals the common truths of human existence. And Pascal's Wager, as a thought experiment, helps navigate people to this point from an abstract logical framework.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    "It's easier to fool someone than to convince them that they've been fooled."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago*

    People tend to develop biases when they are young and reinforce them when they get older.

    If you cut across someone's bias, they tend to see that as your attempt to trick them. And they fall back on a body of knowledge/experience that contradicts your efforts. If you encounter someone without bias, it is easy to seed a bias through presentation of slanted perspectives and cherry-picked information when you are their primary source of truth. But if your audience reflexively distrusts you, it is comparatively difficult to reshape their beliefs. You tend to have more luck playing on their distrust of you.

    As an example, if you have someone who is racist and fearful of young, strong, black men, it is relatively difficult to tamp down that anxiety when around a person like this who they find intimidating. It is comically easy for a person that fits the description - but who is otherwise cheerful, passive, and pleasant - to intimidate the bigot with idle threats or make a fool of them by playing against their presumptions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    I think it falls under "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it". Each one thinking their the first to come up with this scenario (or act like it, after they saw it online, tv, movie...) likely doesn't hold education (specifically history, philosophy, science, etc) in high regard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent