Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Atheist Debates - Pascal's Wager
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 сер 2014
- From the Atheist Debates Patreon project (tinyurl.com/prnfbx5):
A detailed look at Pascal's Wager as originally presented and in its modern, colloquial forms.
Pascal's wager: Believing in and searching for Kryptonite on the off chance that Superman exists and wants to kill you.
I'm using this and you can't stop me
I'm using this and you can't stop me
Slik00Silk I don't know, I found it pretty pleasurable myself.
There is no proof that superman doesn't exist so you seriously need to start looking for kryptonite right now. I won't even trust someone who doesn't search for kryptonite and don't listen to those people who look for it on land, it is clearly in a lake because how else could we have not found it yet.
Literally the plot of batman v Superman lmao 😂😂😂😂
Never a good sign when Homer Simpson can take down your argument.
Lol
One of my favorite Simpsons scenes was one that a prof mentioned in class; "I know you picked all of my flowers, but did you have to salt the earth so nothing would ever grow again?" "Yes"
@Zachary Stewart Including more than one religion in the argument weakens it. Matt covers this in the video you are commenting on. Did you watch it before commenting?
@Zachary Stewart
"Pascal wrote about other religions in Pensées. The wager isn’t an independent argument"
Aren't the Pensées themself a collection of independent notes? What then would his defense of christianity over other religions in the following chapters matter to the argument?
It's not like atheists argue against the christian deity in particular. Even if they were a flaw in one piece of the chain is still a flaw. You don't have to look at the whole chain.
@Zachary Stewart Yeah, but every laymen and their mother uses it independently.
"That's a nice soul you've got there. It'd be a shame if something were to happen to it." Haha! Priceless.
{ Revelation 20 :15 For all names not found written in the book of life were cast into the Lake of fire .} Jesus is the only way to be saved . Unbelief in hell will not make it disappear .
"Footal footsies farts 20:15 in the end I'll crack my toes and save those that did not follow false gods. " Footal Gaga is the only way to be saved. Unbelief in the footy fires will not make it disappear.
@@christianjames7210 But is there any EVIDENCE that hell is even a real place? The only reason we even know about this place called hell is because a book written by man says it exist. We both know that is not sufficient evidence.
@@shaqyardie8105 Nobody can force you to believe . The Bible has 66 books with 44 authors plus . It was written inspired through the Holy Spirit . No mistakes God gives us a warning about rejecting his son Jesus the one who bore our sins on the cross . Again nobody can force you to believe Jesus warned and spoke more about the lake of fire hell than he did heaven . If you die without Jesus and go to hell after Gods warning u only have yourself to blame it is forever no escape .We all have make that decision for ourselves i cannot imagine burning in a lake of fire forever . All of the unbelief in the world will not make hell disappear that is just the way it is . Anyway have a great day thanks for your response .
Jesus loves you .@@shaqyardie8105
Matt, you may not read this but if you do:
Thank you. You may not know this, but you HAVE impacted the lives/ beliefs of many youth in a positive way. Please keep up the good work.
- One of the many youths you've educated.
Ok lol
@@MrNicolas79 Seems sad to me that you revive a 5 year old comment to invoke your “truth” when you don’t know anything about this person other than their short paragraph showing gratitude to someone else.
@@MrNicolas79 You are going to need to point out the damning flaw in Matt's argument that would indicate his position is probably the wrong one. So far as I can tell it is the most reasonable position.
@@MrNicolas79 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@MrNicolas79 Yeah a stupid comment.
"If you can get people to believe absurdities you can get them to commit atrocities" ~ Voltaire. Damn I love quote.
Well, yeah, but *Voltaire supported the slave trade and believed in the inferiority of Africans*
atheistforum.wordpress.com/2014/11/11/the-enlightenment-and-slavery/
And atheism is an absurdity which got the communists to commit many atrocities.
Another similar saying is : " A regime which will burn books isn't far from one that will burn people"
Voltaire was a theist.
@Andy Holland I went to church for over 15 years and attended a bible academy. There was no god calling for me to be any way. Just a bunch of people saying that. All that time and no god showed itself. There was a time when I needed someone...something....anything and i asked this supposed god for a sigh..a feeling....anything, yet nothing. You know what had no problem showing itself? The offering plate. Surprise...surprise.
That Mafia boss analogy absolutely made my day!
this is the thought process that started my walk away from christianity. i realized the “gift of salvation” wasn’t so much a “gift” as it was a quid pro quo where god is also responsible for the consequences of not accepting the deal. very mafia-like
Here lies Pascal's Wager. Missed by none.
Andy Holland why should we care what Von Neumann did?
Despite the comments saying this is needlessly long for a pascal's wager video, I actually really enjoyed the progression of it and that you approached the topic from multiple angles. Covering both philosophy and common sense in your approach is great. Thanks for this, and for the history of Pascal's original wager....
I look forward for the next topics you cover in such detail
Definitely a baffling notion that you can "deceive yourself into a true belief."
Very well done, this.
-Martin Wagner
He just did it him self.........
If this life is all there is then there is no hope. God/Jesus Christ offers the gift of God - eternal life - to know him, the greatest gift ever offered to mankind. When one refuses to recognize their sinful condition, they are calling Christ/God a lair and that deserves punishment. When one is so prideful and arrogant, thinking they are wiser and better than God/Jesus Christ (wanting to be on his throne) they deserve to be set in their place.
Good job on this Matt Dillahunty. It's uncommon to find a critique of Pascal's Wager that addresses Pascal's own application of the wager. Recommended viewing, especially for theists sympathetic to Pascal's Wager.
I'm uploading my own video today where I discuss another objection to Pascal's wager.
Cheers,
- Ozy
Good job on addressing an argument hardly any theist or Christian apologist uses lol
And yet, Matt Bell, despite what you say, it's one the most commonly heard apologetics expressed by people calling in to Dillahunty's show. I've heard it endlessly, my whole life, on forums, on IRC, in UA-cam videos, and in conversations with the faithful.
It's true that sophisticated apologists know to avoid Pascal's wager, but that doesn't change the fact that it's widely adopted and advanced by theists as a rational argument to motivate a belief in god, and that's why counter-apologists (and apologists) should know what's wrong with it.
Cheers,
- Ozy
Ozymandias Ramses II Matt Dillahunty 's show attracts bottom of the barrell kindergarten theists and are responded to by equally bottom of the barrell kindergarten atheists such as Dillahunty and Harris. I have never seen any, even half-informed theist or Christian theist, present or use Pascal's Wager, so I'll see your anecdotal evidence and raise you double. Just as you see value in apologists for atheism responding to trivial, non-value arguments such as Pascal's wager so I see value in pointing out that it is no great achievement, indeed is like taking sweets from a child, to knock down a bad, flawed argument.
Matt Bell I love your "anecdotal evidence" reference. That's another argument we hear a lot.
Matt Bell Bad, flawed arguments don't refute themselves. They can, and often do, have traction, can spread widely, and persist. In the case of Pascal's Wager, it's persisted for centuries and is the go-to argument for the average person. Bad arguments which actually persuade and which actually serve to preserve and maintain ideas when they shouldn't, they need to be countered too, not just the good arguments.
Haven't you (to your credit) challenged people - theist and atheist alike - who presented bad apologetics and counter-apologetics? Yes, you have. And you shouldn't be faulted for taking the time to refute the crappy, bottom of the barrel version of presuppositionalism as you did just recently in an on-air hangout or when you counter bad arguments from atheists. And Dillahunty shouldn't be faulted when he does that. And yes, Dillahunty does take the trouble of arguing against what he judges to be bad counter-apologetics, even if you and he don't agree on which arguments those are.
Cheers,
- Ozy
even if it was safer to believe in god, by that logic im only believing in god because its safe, not because i ACTUALLY believe in god. so either way im going to hell.
Any god worth his salt would know the difference. But if the xian god is real, he would have created you knowing you would pretend to believe to hedge your bets and that he would have to send you to eternal torture, yet created you anyway. What a sick fuck.
@Andy Holland Equivocation (Fallacy of the Week)
ua-cam.com/video/3m-kRhiTxPI/v-deo.html
@Andy Holland Okay, and what do you mean by "God?" Watch this video before answering .
Cultural Literacy and Religions of the World
ua-cam.com/video/4mRDeCrV50g/v-deo.html
@Andy Holland Aah The Nicene Creed.
How do you know that the Nicene Creed has it right?
How Did the Nicene Creed Form?
ua-cam.com/video/T_QoPEaULgM/v-deo.html
Andy Holland sounds like a sermon to me. Any facts?
Immediately subscribed just after watching one of your videos. Absolutely love them
Pascal's wager debunked in one sentence: "Yes, but which god?"
What's the answer when it's "well, its up to you to pick one"
Andy Holland is he lost? And which one is the true one?
Andy Holland pray to who?
Andy Holland fine assertion. Can you demonstrate that? If not, dismissed.
Andy Holland I’ll take whatever you got.
The whole proposition for Pascal's wager is ultimately preposterous. I am an atheist. I don't see adequate evidence to believe, so I don't believe. To say that I should "just believe" to be safe has the problem of that I don't believe. I can't believe. So, if I go to church, loudly shout halleluiah and proclaim Jesus as my savior for all to hear, it still doesn't make me a believer. It makes me a practitioner. And a liar. Belief has to be in the heart, excuse me - mind. So, what does god want: a true believer or a practitioner (who is also lying)? If he is omnipotent then he would see right through my lie. Just having this discussion creates doubt.
Proclaim
It would make you like most christians, just going through the motions, pretending, to avoid the fallout from admitting they are not really believers.
@Andy Holland You can comment a thousand times. Your argument and Pascal's Wager make zero sense. Nothing you say changes that fact for any critically thinking person.
@Andy Holland You keep repeating yourself, as if you have proven something. 😆 I do not care how smart you think you are, or how smart you think others are. Intellectual genius is no guarantee against being DEAD WRONG....much less you. This is even moreso the case when it comes to fictional nonsense. I'll say it again... NOTHING YOU SAY can change the fact that the bible is a horribly constructed book of contradictions and fictional nonsense. Go ahead and keep trying though. I'm sure you have convinced yourself you have proven something.
@Andy Holland You are such a hypocrite. 😆 You talk of humility after stating what you do as a means to try and prove that you are some smart guy that knows it all. Humility is the exact opposite of every comment of yours. You need to put that nonsensical book down and read something else. "The dossier of reason" would be a good start.
Hell is the most effective scare tactic ever created.
Hehehe
is very real
@@ka-ty6mhprove it
Matt put it brilliantly in one of his other lectures: Hell is the biggest stick, and heaven is the biggest carrot.
Hell comes from Jesus who talked about it 30 times.
Never have i heard a more clearer definition of Pascal's wager before this video. Im going to download this video and keep it in my cellphone. Great job!
Such a well put together video. Insightful, informative and crystal clear. Great work Matt.
If this life is all there is then there is no hope. God/Jesus Christ offers the gift of God - eternal life - to know him, the greatest gift ever offered to mankind. When one refuses to recognize their sinful condition, they are calling Christ/God a lair and that deserves punishment. When one is so prideful and arrogant, thinking they are wiser and better than God/Jesus Christ (wanting to be on his throne) they deserve to be set in their place.
The real question is, when you are on your death bed and look back at your life, do you want to realize that you wasted your life with your back turned towards Reality and wasted your entire limited existed believing in something that's not real?
Ian Alan But Reality is not relative. There is a real Reality that we all exist in and is still there when you stop believing in it. Reality is what makes someone right and someone wrong.
Ian Alan Faith in gods can lead a person to denying medical care for their children, sometimes leading to their deaths.
Cause them to believe in irrational things that can lead to poor decisions in life.
Reject education and hurt their job prospects.
Cause them to give up significant sums of money to con artists that prey on the faithful.
Devote work and energy to wasteful causes.
Cause harm through inaction to others because of religious beliefs.
Intentionally cause mental and physical harm to others in obedience to religious beliefs.
Cause harm to future generations because you worship a doomsday religion, that believes that a messiah clean up our mess on his or her return.
These are a few of the ways that irrational beliefs can be harmful.
Jack Dingler I agree with everything you said except that it's not believing in gods but ignoring reality. Gods don't exist - reality does. We need to get the focus on to reality, what does exist, and not what doesn't.
Ian Alan Hi Ian, if we are arguing about Reality then we are talking about the right thing. My position is that I will believe whatever is real. I actually can prove that their God is not real. But God isn't the issue. I focus on Reality. God is not interesting to me having never been a theist.
Ian Alan I think you're missing an important point that Matt is simply responding to Pascal's idea that there is no cost to dedicating your life to religion if you do NOT believe it. For example, if you declined an opportunity to have sex with a hot girl because you were trying to adhere to a religious practices that you don't even believe are valid, there is a real and tangible cost to that choice.
Secondly, please do not conflate belief with non-belief. They are not equivalent and to assert that they are demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of logic. The null position on all questions of whether something is real or not is non-belief. Belief is only ascribed when a person is convinced of something's existence. If it is in fact impossible to prove the existence of god(s), then the correct logical position is non-belief (which is not the same as an assertion that god does not existence, something very, very few atheists ever say). To specifically address your above comment, no atheists I know and a tiny fraction that I have ever heard talk claim to 'know' that god(s) does not exist, so please do not assume that is the position they are taking in any argument.
Nice Job Matt. This is a really good format for you. I have been a fan of the show for years and this is an effective way for you to clearly present your arguments without constant interruption. Please do more. Great work.
Thanks Matt, glad to see this project finally come to light. Can't wait for the next one!
I think the biggest problem with Pascal's Wager is much simpler than all of this.
If you "believe" something just because it is a "safe bet" to do so, then you do not actually believe. You are already pretending. "Belief" like this is not belief at all; it is not even faith, or trust. It is hope. People who "believe" in this way simply hope that God exists, so that in the off chance He does, they go to Heaven.
I know what belief is, and I have never once encountered a "believer" that actually believes. Not once. Ever. It is all just a game of pretend.
Agreed, and even better, the appeal to pretend belief is touted as sound advice in the wager. However, wouldn't an all-knowing god or one that "knows your heart" know that you were just pretending to believe? How does that not damn you just as surely as non-belief?
Even though my religion teacher (it's mandatory in my school) is terrible at reasoning why god exists, at least she's genuine. If I recall correctly someone asked "How do you know God exists?" And she replied by basically saying the bible is proof of it. She is quite zealous about it because she once asked what types of people there are (talking about theists and atheists) and when I said atheists just don't believe in God she ignored me and said they hate religion and want to live sinfully.
Even believing in god though is not enough. You have to specifically believe in jesus christ and not only believe in him, but believe he is the only way to salvation. But then the bible doesn't clearly state what is required for heaven, it changes depending on which passage you read.
I'm amazed you managed to keep this under 30 mins - Pascal's Wager commits SO MANY fallacies...
The best response to "what if you're wrong?" is "depends who's right".
This video is invaluable! Thanks for putting it together. The natural setting is a lovely touch.
Awesome video Matt! I love the format. I hope you will be doing more videos like this in the future.
I didn't realise Matt had a youtube channel.
Either way, he's one of my favourite speakers in the Atheist community because he understands both sides quite well on account of experiencing them, and the fact that he is so eloquent when he speaks and, most importantly, does not allow someone to ramble off multiple premises if there is a flaw (except in official debates, of course).
Great video Matt. Thank you.
Brilliantly taken apart!!! Thank you sooo much Matt!!
Stellar video Matt. An exceedingly well articulated, efficiently conveyed and thoroughly comprehensive discussion. I am most assuredly donating to your Patreon project.
Once again, Matt does is best. Debating can often be suboptimal during a live phone call, yet Matt was still very good on TAE. But with the time to construct a proper video, Matt's clarity of thought shines!
Thanks Matt. I chose this video to share with a theist because it was so logically presented. I thought it was my best chance to explain to a theist who was presenting it. Thanks again for your work. A Cleveland fan.
Same! lol!
What was their reply if you don't mind me asking? I know this is old af but its relevant
This has been a while, but Matt's reply is simple and cogent.
Pascal's Wager is a "Straw Man Fallacy". Pascal's wager suggests, incorrectly, that there are only 2 options, i.e. either Christianity is true and your will be saved if you confess that you believe Jesus is god, or you reject that Jess is god and you spend eternity in hell,. Then it asks, "What do you have to lose"? The answer is, "A lot".
In actuality, some other religion may be true, If Islam is true and you are a Christian, you will go to hell for eternity. Maybe, a god exists, created us, and is pissed with humans who do not use our minds to think and question the existence of said god.
There are many other "possible god scenarios" that Matt suggests. You can use your imagination to think of all the kinds of gods one could propose. How would one know if they were "good" or not, or which one is real? AND it is always possible that none are exist.
The second point in Pascal's Wager is that "What do you have to lose?"
Simple reply, "Everything". You cannot know which god's rules you are suppose to be following, belief is not knowledge. You cannot know if there is an afterlife. Why not be the best person you can, which would please any god that is worth worshipping. AND if there is no god or afterlife, you will not have wasted your whole life thinking you and everyone else is garbage, that you deserve pain and suffering [for being sinful. . . who made us that way?], and you will not have wasted every opportunity to do good for the sake of doing good [not because of a fear of punishment], fulfilled your personal goals and longings, and left a history of good relationships [not having waited to "make amends" in heaven].
Never be afraid to say, "I'm sorry", "I was wrong", "I don't know". On the other hand do not believe things until they have been demonstrated to be true, otherwise you'd have to believe everycockamamie thing that people claim [and you WILL be taken to the cleaners].
These are all things that Matt has said.
Thanks for asking me. Any more questions, please contact me.
@@mediocreguitar5411
@@sweetpeabrown261 If this life is all there is then there is no hope. God/Jesus Christ offers the gift of God - eternal life - to know him, the greatest gift ever offered to mankind. When one refuses to recognize their sinful condition, they are calling Christ/God a lair and that deserves punishment. When one is so prideful and arrogant, thinking they are wiser and better than God/Jesus Christ (wanting to be on his throne) they deserve to be set in their place.
Added to fav! This is one of the best reviews of Pascal’s wager I’ve ever seen! Great work, Matt!
Really well done, Matt. I know there are some folks complaining about it, but let me give you another thumbs-up in the style category. I like that the video is slowly paced, long, and comprehensive. The calmness and clarity of language are what matters most. For this reason, if someone presented me with Pascal's Wager, I would be inclined to send them to this video for explanation before many others on the same topic.
Thank you.
Q. "What if you're wrong?"
A. So, I presume you've already asked your pastor this same question and she/he wasn't able to provide a satisfactory answer. Right?
If this life is all there is then there is no hope. God/Jesus Christ offers the gift of God - eternal life - to know him, the greatest gift ever offered to mankind. When one refuses to recognize their sinful condition, they are calling Christ/God a lair and that deserves punishment. When one is so prideful and arrogant, thinking they are wiser and better than God/Jesus Christ (wanting to be on his throne) they deserve to be set in their place.
There’s an extremely important lesson to learn from Pascal’s Wager - that even even highly intelligent, knowledgeable, and otherwise reasonable people can come to ridiculous conclusions, especially if they are motivated by bias. We should all strive to not let that happen to ourselves.
Brilliant... Matt with a professional video and audio presentation. The logical next step and none too soon. Great job!
It was great to hear you without interruptions. Thanks for posting.
Pascals Wager is nonsense. because it lacks the argument in WHICH god to believe.
There are thousands of gods and each of them could be the right one.
So the probability, that you "gain" something, even there is a god, is minimal, because it could be a god in which you don't believe. But you lose a lot: You have to follow many religious rules. You will never find out the mysteries of nature, the wonders of evolution. You are always afraid of your god. Your whole worldview is faulty.
Roland Ibanez it is still a better chance then being an atheist, and have a 0 percent chance of gaining anything
Enjoying the life is quite a gain.
@@bradmad24 what if the supposed god hates those who worship other gods more than atheists? What if he rewards people who search for truth rather than those who believe blindly?
@@bradmad24 lol delusional much!
@@lycanthoss Exactly this. The old testament has far more to say about those who choose the "wrong" god than choose none at all.
I have a wager to bring Pascal's logic back against the theist. It goes like this:
If an afterlife does not exist, but you believe in it, you would have wasted your life; not expecting death to be the end of all.
If an afterlife does not exist, but you don't believe in it, you will have lived your life to the fullest, the ideal case.
If an afterlife does exist, but you believe in it, you would most likely be expecting something different from the afterlife that happens.
If an afterlife does exist, but you do not believe in it, you will have lived your life to the fullest and be (hopefully pleasantly) surprised at the new discovery.
Therefore, it is better to not believe in an afterlife than to believe in one. Checkmate?
+Cubba
A nice attempt, but it ignores just as much "alternate possibilities" as Pascal does... what if the afterlife isn't pleasant (aka Hell)? Nobody would be pleasantly surprised by being thrown into fiery pits for wailing and gnashing teeth...
But yes, the original wager it completely oblivious to the ridiculously high cost contained in a life of religiosity... not just the tithes and donations, all the time wasted, all the tiny little rules going against human nature (the obsession with sex and its rigid control and limitation to only a few "acceptable" acts or partners alone is an ENORMOUS cost).
Add all the hate and mistrust you are expected to extend towards "others", "heathens" and disbelievers... poisoning the whole of society and even your local community almost into dysfunctionality... (Almost can fall away if your community is the westboro baptist church or a similar group).
Just looking at the "overhead" of belief... the gigantic costs to maintain a profession of advertisers for its own existence (priests, however you may call them) and multiple offices basically EVERYWHERE (churches, synagogues, mosques, temples) including very expensive ad campaigns for the "word of mouth" propaganda... (believers that are not ordained trying to "convert" people to their brand of the religion)... shows how costly it is to keep the world convinced that they need to "fake it till you make it". And some soup kitchens or bake sales for charity do not really lower that cost any further... as they tend to ask for ADDITIONAL donations instead of using some of the money already given for better purposes than "spreading the glory of god around"...
Wrong! I would just die,right atheists? I would not be in trouble for being wrong,but you and Matt will.Pascal's Wager is based on increasing your odds of winning when you're gambling. I think this is why some Christians don't use Pascal's Wager,but it has not been refuted by an atheist.If Matt is wrong he will be in trouble,but I will not be in trouble if I was somehow wrong. Matt cannot get around this fact. And if he brings up other gods then it is his responsibility to convince me why I should believe in that God over Jesus. But I already know about other gods and religions and I would not believe in any other god over Jesus and I have serious reasons why. It is not just because I'm a biased Christian. For instance I will not believe in unholy gods who never do anything about evil and sin and allow it into the afterlife,unlike Jesus Christ because he is Holy. Atheists often wonder why God allows so much suffering,evil and sin if he loves us so much,but then consider other gods for a Christian who will allow it in their afterlife and the problem is never dealt with. I actually look forward to judgment day and it is a big reason why I'm glad I'm a Christian.Just based on afterlifes I'm glad I'm a Christian and don't believe in some other god and I'm glad I'm not an atheist either who only has death to hope for. BORING! I really do not desire any afterlife where evil and sin remain because that god is not Holy and I do not just hope to just die and that is it,like atheists do.They are of the Devil and this is why evil and sin remain or you just die,but NOT with Jesus Christ he will destroy evil and sin and cast it into hell and restore the world to the way it should have been.But he will do it in God's time,not ours.
abelcainsbrother If God exists and is truly just, and he throws me in Hell for not believing in him, then I will embrace my suffering and have no problem with it at all, because there is no problem with it according to the one standard that matters, God's. Ergo, I shouldn't bother worshiping Him in that case. If He doesn't exist, I also shouldn't bother worshiping Him. Therefore, I shouldn't bother worshiping Him either way.
abelcainsbrother Why is it a dumb decision? I have already explained that suffering enacted by a just God cannot be bad, so why should I try to avoid Hell?
I cannot choose to believe in something. Can you just choose to believe in Bigfoot if someone asks you too? If so, please explain how, because it would be very applicable to this situation you apparently think I'm in, where I need to choose to believe before any evidence will be presented.
It doesn't matter how often I pray, because when Jesus doesn't answer me, you will just say I wasn't sincere, will you not? I have prayed in the depths of despair multiple times in full hope to be saved, and have received no response.
I prayed to Jesus to forgive me of my sins just now, as sincerely as I could despite my current disbelief, and nothing seems to have happened. If you think I wasn't sincere enough, explain how I can be more sincere. Otherwise, stop saying that I am refusing to pray to Jesus, because I have no idea what else I'm to do when I've already done the one thing you told me I refuse to do.
abelcainsbrother Your comment seems to have disappeared. For the record, you asked me to ask Jesus to forgive my sins, I did, and now you've vanished, since I've defeated your entire claim.
This video is comprehensive and brilliant. This should be the new "go to" video for anyone seeking to understand this concept. I hope this sets a strong current for the future in tackling other religious arguments. Well done Matt!
Matt, I really like this format for your talks, not that I don't appreciate listening to your debates or ACA AE content. This serene setting and the smooth transitions between scenes frames your message well. I have enjoyed watching your intellectual evolution as well as your growing maturity evidenced by your self confidence. You don't seem to have the need to get frustrated as much. Great job! You have captured my interest which is hard to do being the apathetic sceptical deficient that I have evolved into. Again, great job.
as i see it pascal wager is like saying: "you have to bet to numbers x y and z in the next lottery" without even know if there is going to be a lottery. XD
Knock, knock.
Who's there?
JC: It's me, Jesus. Let me in!
Why?
JC: So I can save you.
From what?
JC: from what my daddy and I will do to you for eternity, if you don't let me in!
If this life is all there is then there is no hope. God/Jesus Christ offers the gift of God - eternal life - to know him, the greatest gift ever offered to mankind. When one refuses to recognize their sinful condition, they are calling Christ/God a lair and that deserves punishment. When one is so prideful and arrogant, thinking they are wiser and better than God/Jesus Christ (wanting to be on his throne) they deserve to be set in their place.
Very well constructed and very well explained, thank you Matt and whoever helped you!
Matt, I watch you, Tracy and Jenn on AE all the time and you guys are great. Keep up the great work.
Before I lost my faith, my beliefs hanged on a variation of Pascal's wager. Of course, I was more of a deist than a Christian by that point. It's intuitive to see the issue as a 50% chance of being right or wrong. My wager days were fairly short lived.
may i suggest rephrasing "i lost my faith" to "i gained reason". faith isent really worth much at all so losing it seems like a play on words because your not losing anything. you just havent thought about things enough untill you gain reasoning skills. imo growing out of religon and unrational thinking shouldent be seen as losing, because your gaining so much
@@knivesron If this life is all there is then there is no hope. God/Jesus Christ offers the gift of God - eternal life - to know him, the greatest gift ever offered to mankind. When one refuses to recognize their sinful condition, they are calling Christ/God a lair and that deserves punishment. When one is so prideful and arrogant, thinking they are wiser and better than God/Jesus Christ (wanting to be on his throne) they deserve to be set in their place.
There was a good programme on BBC Radio about Pascal that places his wager in the context of his time and kind of theology he practiced. There's more subtlety to it than is usually demonstrated by modern uses of it.
(Link in reply to avoid spam filter)
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03b2v6m
conferencereport The issue isn't about context. For example, we can safely say that many things Aristotle said was wrong, even though his ideas were very popular in his time.
lindeed. And Aristotle's ideas are amongst those challenged by Pascal. My point is that the use of the Wager by modern amateur apologists doesn't reflect the far more interesting ideas he was playing with.
conferencereport That very well may be, but that's not the discussion we seem to be having, it's how Pascal's wager is used today by modern apologists. Now if modern apologists were to start using a different version of the wager we could discuss that.
***** Thanks for the reply. l understand what you mean and maybe l'm in a luxury position here in the UK where religion just isn't an issue, but is seems to me that Matt starts to take on some of the complexity of Pascal's Wager, as originally presented, and then cuts back to the reduced version that modern apologists use. Maybe, as you suggest, l'm just looking for a discussion of it that isn't dictated by it's least able representatives.
Great work Matt. Well put together.
Can't wait for the next one. Keep it up!
This video shouldn't have to exist 😒
RE-DONE with fewer Type-os. (I hate autospell).
Very good video, but on the work on Pascal there is some important background to consider.
Firstly, at this time, Pascal had not just become religious, he had become a Port-Royal catholic (a belief system he once though of as a cult), a sect of Jansenists based at the Port-Royal-des-Champs Abbey. This is important because you have to ask, what was a 'non believer' in the 1650s/1660s when Pascal was writing the Pensées? Almost certainly not an atheist in the modern sense. More likely those who had the wrong sort of belief, the wrong take on God.
Pascal was writing in the aftermath of the Thirty Years War, probably the most brutal and destructive war in history that touched everybody in the region. This war, ostensibly over religious identity, shaped the views of a great many thinkers and led to a slew of great scientific thinkers re-reading Montaigne's Essai's, particularly, Apologie De Raymond Sebond, which sets out Christian Skepticism, claiming that God cannot be proven and so belief must rely upon faith.
Descartes chose to tackle this vision with his Meditations, claiming that certain things can indeed be known - that he is a thinking thing - and so some of the better known proofs of God can be valid if built upon these foundations. Pascal, who was also hugely influenced by Montaigne, chose another route. He agreed absolutely with the premise in Sebond, and was no doubt in part attempting to show Descartes to be wrong; Descartes's 'New Philosophy' had become hugely influential in France at this time. Whereas Descartes had brought his immense talent in geometry to bare on the question, evoking extension and place, Pascal was more mathematical, his arguments for Christian scepticism reading almost like equations at times. More importantly, he chose to write the wager as a classic discourse, drawing form Platonism; another faith based epistemology, at least where afterlife is concerned.
The question remains is to why is faith important and faith in what? In the case of Montaigne and those who sort proofs, it wasn't to act as an apologetic against atheists, as such a concept was almost impossible in that worldview (although claims are made of Shakespeare and Spinoza). Rather, these were thought experiments to shore up a believer's particular take on God, in Pascal's case, Jansenism.
This brings us back to the Thirty Years War. After horrors and terrors like Europe had rarely seen, nothing had changed, no land was gained, no heresy (at the definition of this depended on which side you spoke to) wiped out. The great Antichrists of the Pope or the Protestant faith continued. Also, over the water in England the sanctity of royalty had been damaged by the regicide of Charles I. It suddenly seemed like God was not protecting anyone, like he had no favourites. So reasons to remain faithful to your cause were important. Pascal provided the Saint-Royal Jansenists with such a reason. An argument to rely on faith, to turn their backs on the now damaged 'book of nature' to whom many had previously turned and have faith again in their view of God, because it was better that, than the assumed alternative.
Excellent synopsis!
As a historian of ideas, I would have to disagree. Nobody is ever free from context, and trying to claim you are was a popular trope of thinkers at the time. It was never true.
Thank you Matt! Good video, and very nicely explained. Hopefully more to come
Nice one mate. I look forward to where this series goes.
That background/waterfill is making me confused, I'm not sure what to make of it. It's different from what I normally see.
Get out more :D
At my time of life, the sound of running water makes me want to pee. I had to stop the video three times.
You needa go outside more bro!
Great points. And thank you for being a reasonable, intelligent atheist, not just a Mr. Shouty.
RotharTheUncaring lol... Mr Shouty
Thank you for putting almost every argument I've ever had against Pascal's Wager into one video.
This was a great video. It's rare to come across a video with arguments explained so simply and orderly. Not once did he insult Pascal. Not once did he misrepresent the argument or skip important sections. Very nice.
What the heck *is* Heaven?
And how is it going to be any better than this place if we're all there AGAIN together?
lol
Not to mention, how does one get to go to heaven? It is told in the bible, several times, and they are all different.
Lol dude I love you
@UniBrowser... That's the point son. WE won't all be there
Joe Coolioness to get into heaven we must be born again and repent of our sins
Alex McAuliff nope, actually someone in the bible asked the same question ur asking right now to Jesus. being born again means giving up ur past sinful life, believing Jesus died on the cross for you, living for Jesus and getting a relationship with Him. We are not to follow the flesh but only the Holy spirit
A couple thoughts on this;
While I generally enjoy the video over-all, a few things jumped out at me. First was a lack of any sound at the beginning left me wondering if I had my volume up, and then an uncomfortably long pause before Matt starts speaking at the beginning. There are a few other points as well where the pauses really stand out. It reminds me of some advice from youtubers Rachel and Jun (who do Japanese language learning and culture videos) about how she removes all those pauses from her videos because it not only makes listening to them much smoother, but it shows respect for the viewer's time by not making them sit through all those pauses.
I feel like a little more editing polish along those lines could make the video even better. Keep up the good work!
It wasn't uncomfortable for me and pauses aren't necessarily bad. I personally don't like youtubers who talk 100 miles an hour, because most of the times it only serves to reinforce my beliefs without making me question it myself, and create this animosity towards religious people and all other purposes are not evident. Of course video isn't perfect and there's a lot room for improvement
Noted, thanks.
Matt Dillahunty the flow and theme was welcoming in my opinion. Thanks for putting this out there.
Matt Dillahunty
Please do a video on how charity and good deeds in general are the product of a person being good, not a product of being religious or nonreligious.
Aaron Belbeck
I don't think it made the video unwelcoming, but it's a different format than his usual presentations where it's just a video of him standing and delivering. So you don't see his body language or expect the flow of a "live" delivery. It wasn't meant to cast the video in a negative light. It was merely the only critique I could come up with for areas where he might be able to make some improvement for this new format. :) (Kind of like how everyone told Aron Ra to get a new microphone when he started doing his new videos.)
I didn't comment on the theme because I thought he made a very interesting presentation on the subject that I personally had not heard covered before. I've never actually looked up Pascal's Wager directly, so I had no idea that it was much longer and more complex. So I really enjoyed the material itself. Like I said, just trying to offer the only constructive criticism I could come up with given Matt's foray into this new format.
Glad you have your own channel. Keep up the good work.
Thanks for being who you are Matt. And please never underestimate the difference you make in people's lives.
The age old argument is, which is the REAL god?
"Fake it 'til you make it"
I was told: "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of god" [Read or listen to scripture daily for weeks or months untill you're convinced] That could concievably work. Provided you spontaneously spin the apparent atrocities of god into acts of righteousness. No way, I know what a loving god would not do, and a lot of what he WOULD do (but hasn't). Who am I to judge? I'm me. The fact that I don't know EVERYTHING is not sufficient reason to look upon my cognitions with fanatical mistrust.
Another problem with the method described is that it would also work with the koran, the upanishads, baghavad gita, tao te ching...book of mormon. I decided to pass.
Just ask them to try to believe in Santa Claus. Enough said.
Great video, Matt. Solid explanation. Thank you and keep up the good work.
Great video Matt! I dig the Voltaire quote, "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities". Thanks for sharing!
Pascal's wager assumes that this all knowing, omnipresent God can't tell the difference between a true believer, and someone who is only going through the motions of being a Christian just in case Christianity is right. If I accepted pascal's wager and said that I believe in God, I think God would be smart enough to know that I was full of shit.
The wager is not about faking belief it is to believe or not - the person is LIKELY to do things on the belief if not the belief is probably non-exist you don't need to be a God to figure that out.
Pascal's assertion that the existence and nonexistence of God are equally likely probably stems from his definition of God as incomprehensible. He claims we can know nothing about him, and therefore he is correct to say that the probability of his existence is exactly half. If it were not exactly half, then that would mean we had some knowledge about him.
Of course, he is wrong in the first place to say we can know nothing about God. Even saying such a thing requires knowledge in itself. We will never know anything about which we can know nothing, by definition, and so could never believe in such a thing. This, combined with inappropriate use of infinity, is the main problem with the argument.
No offence, but I think you are missing the point. It is not "exactly" half. The way in which this is intellectually lazy, is that for someone who does not want to continue searching for the real truth, this concept becomes pointless for that person. They give up, so the actual data acquired no longer matters. Therefore they lazily come to the conclusion that it might as well be 50/50. It's not actually 50/50. It's someone saying "well, either there is a god or there isn't", but there are so many things to consider, and so much information to acquire in the search of this answer. That's why these 50/50 analogies are flawed. Just like the lottery analogy. It's absurd how horrible that is. Another one would be that it's a 50/50 chance that you will get hit by a car today. That's not true at all, and you know it's not. That's how data works. We just have a lot less data about the universe than we do statistical data about how often people get hit by cars. It's still not 50/50. That's a cop out.
archaictext I didn't say the odds of any real, useful god existing were 1:1, but the odds of the existence of something defined only as that about which we can know nothing are by definition 1:1. To assign any different odds we would have to know something about it.
It is a necessary conclusion of the (flawed) definition Pascal used.
+EebstertheGreat Fair enough
***** Knowing what something is not is still knowing something about it. The part of the argument read in this video claimed we can know "nothing" about God. Obviously that makes no sense, because he then asserts many things about him, but that's hardly the only problem with the argument.
It's easy to see though that if I asked you something like "zygwe is a concrete noun. Do zygwes exist?" you would have no reasonable answer. That word could just as easily mean something that does or does not exist. You would need more information to answer. Of course, labeling the unknown as "God" is a trick seen often in these types of arguments.
***** "If God is infinite, as Pascal claims, then God is not anyTHING in particular."
I guess it depends on your definition of a "thing." I would argue that infinity is a "thing," as are the set of real numbers, space and time, and other . . . things . . . that could be described as infinite. Regardless, that has no impact on whether or not we could know anything about him. We know many things about the set of real numbers, which is infinite.
If by "infinite" you mean "all-encompassing," then we know a great many things about God, because everything we know about anything is necessarily about (some aspect of) God.
More to the point, you seem to at least know that God is infinite, and that is still more than nothing.
"It is the heart which perceives God and not the reason."
And yet we still get knowledge from our heart (or intuition or whatever you want to call it). We still assign probabilities differently depending on our unreasoned judgments. If I knew in my heart that God existed, I would consider his existence extremely likely, certainly more likely than not.
"Which things are you talking about?"
That God is infinite and unknowable, that he reveals himself to us, that he cares about our beliefs, that he will punish or reward us according to them, etc. These are knowable things _about_ God. They don't necessarily have to describe his "essence" in material detail to be pertinent.
Great video. I'm glad your making more of an attempt at a UA-cam presence. Who cares about view count etc. You have always done a great job thoroughly debunking arguments and a lot of my arsenal come from the atheist experience show. I now usually know where they are headed with their arguments and can stop them before they try any tricks. Thanks for the uploads!
This is exactly how I like my arguments: logic, reason and facts.
Great video.
Sye does not like this.
But...how do you KNOW that Sye does not like this?
Could you be wrong about that?
Bruce Baker
because the flying spaghetti monster has revealed it to me in such a way as to be certain
Bruce Baker The odds are better that he is right, rather than god exist. The arrogance of Sye would not allow him to partake in this as he would think it is beneath him. Sye would say that Pascal's wager is the perfect "ism" of logic, while still believing his god delusion could be deceived by someone, "faking it."
superhbman The hyper intergalactic computer has revealed to me that the spaghetti monster has not revealed to you anything so why do you lie?
20:35 I didn't get this with Ph.D student he encountered...did he say that the probability of wining a lottery is 0.5? Wow! A doctor in philosophy doesn't know the simplest test in probability to solve. Here's a test for everyone, it's like this one only a tiny bit different but simple nonetheless: two lovers sleep together in a bed. One of them sleeps 40% of time away and 60% of time facing the partner, and the other one is faced 25% away and 75% facing his loved one. In one night, what's the probability of them facing each other? Hint: Probability goes from 0 to 1, 0 means an event doesn't happen and 1 means it happens for certain; 25% means 0.25 probability of happening.
the way I explain it is, the chance of winning the lottery is not "either you win or you lose", it's "either you win, or you lose, or you lose, or you lose, or you lose, etc."
.60 x .75 = .45
Some shots at the beginning had me laughing, like 2:17 to 2:28 with that zoom transition at the end.
Although that philosophy student clearly was wrong, I din't understand why Matt would connect this with Pascal, because Pascal's wager is about expected value and given his premises the expected value will be higher for theism *under any circumstance allowed by the argument* due to the infinities involved with theism(It would exclude absolute knowledge, so p=0 and p=1 for any option is out. One would have to dispute the premises for that, but the argument holds for all other values of probability unless you would dispute his math(Modern statisticians actually would not accept his math, but the reason for this is not trivial)).
yea, thats like saying the probability of rolling a 1 on a six sided die, or rolling a 2-6 is .50-.50. i've actually had this same argument with people about the lottery. people don't seem to realize that .50-.50 means each has a 50% chance of happening. like in the die example, the odds of rolling each side of the die would be .1666-.1666-.1666-.1666-.1666-.1666. the odds of rolling a 1 or rolling a 2-6 would be .1666-.8333, not .50-.50. for the lottery, it would be easily calculable, but without using actual numbers, would be like .0000000001-.9999999999 or something.
I've always felt the strongest two arguments were that we don't control our own beliefs, and that giving over your only life to an incredibly strict entity that doesn't exist is actually quite an important risk. And the many possible gods (with different requirements) argument is hard to deny also. But this is really comprehensive, so thanks for making it!
Love this Matt! Do more!
Unf 27 minutes to debunk Pascals Wager? This could have been 10x shorter.
We eagerly await your 2.7 minute video on Pascal's Wager!
***** Why would anyone do that? It's been debunked in under a minute by many people including matt himself on the atheist experience show lots of times.
I don't feel religious people are going to sit through 27 minutes to debunk this, especially if they're stupid enough to believe it in the first place.
While there could have been a TLDR equivalent, you also have to consider the people this video primarily is intended to and their ability to comprehend its message after a lifetime of putting their logic aside.
Well, if someone's of such low intellect that they can't engage with ideas for longer than 2 minutes, then I guess following a video like this will be a problem for them. Hopefully those people are never burdened by the challenge of reading a book or sitting through a class in college, which I am reliably told take far more than 27 minutes.
LarsSod But are theists going to sit through 27 minutes? This is great intellectual masturbation for people who are already atheists, I just don't think this going to be effective, especially on youtube where peoples attention spans are very short, especially for people coming at the issue with preconceived ideas of theism. There's a massive list of 2-4 minute videos in my side bar on pascals wager which all cover the main points.
Great video Matt!...I wish you would make more..
Some amazing stuff Matt, really like how you think
I have watched many videos on Pascal's Wager, and I have formulated many written responses against Pascal's Wager ,when addressing apologists online. This video is by far the most lucid and eloquent presentation I have ever been exposed to, refuting Pascal's Wager. Good job!
***** - "I have watched many videos on Pascal's Wager, and I have formulated many written responses against Pascal's Wager"
May I ask, why do you find it so interesting? I don't see it as anything more than a cost-benefit analysis, and even then it fails to account both for other gods and the question of whether we have volitional control over our beliefs. I don't get the ongoing fascination with Pascal's Wager.
Mark Hornberger It's mostly just thought experiments we occupy ourselves with while the creationists scramble to cobble together a new pile of logical fallacies into something resembling an argument...
Excellent video Matt! I look forward to catching more of them. I am an exmormon, now atheist, and you have been a constant source of balanced and well thought out information. FSM bless you and your family.
If this life is all there is then there is no hope. God/Jesus Christ offers the gift of God - eternal life - to know him, the greatest gift ever offered to mankind. When one refuses to recognize their sinful condition, they are calling Christ/God a lair and that deserves punishment. When one is so prideful and arrogant, thinking they are wiser and better than God/Jesus Christ (wanting to be on his throne) they deserve to be set in their place.
This video made me subscribe. Although Pascal's Wager has been been to death, I like the format you present this.
Nice job Matt, keep up the great work.
Excellent synopsis, analysis and criticism. Thanks, Matt. Very educational.
If this life is all there is then there is no hope. God/Jesus Christ offers the gift of God - eternal life - to know him, the greatest gift ever offered to mankind. When one refuses to recognize their sinful condition, they are calling Christ/God a lair and that deserves punishment. When one is so prideful and arrogant, thinking they are wiser and better than God/Jesus Christ (wanting to be on his throne) they deserve to be set in their place.
ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT MATT....WELL THOUGHT OUT AND GREAT BREAKDOWN OF SOME VERY ESOTERIC CONCEPTS IN YOUR POLEMIC AGAINST PASCALS WAGER
You and i will probably never meet in life, but thank you for the work you are doing, your voice is wide and far reaching. I'm now working everyday to train my mind to be a critical thinker, but it is not a easy thing.
It's been so long since you all have uploaded Æ episodes on YT. I'm waiting impatiently.
I really enjoyed this video, thank you for making it.
Thanks for this. As much as reading does its always good to have a personal explanation to help make it more personal then just regurgitating what youve read.
At the core of Pascal's wager is the proposition that we can somehow believe 'at will'. We can't belief 'at will'. We believe because of reasons we perceive to be convincing. Pascal 's wager is an attempt at demoting the value of truth of a proposition for imaginary reward. You are right Matt , it is the most shameful attack on intellectual integrity ever mounted. Great vid. Thanks from London, England.
Wow this video was truly amazing. Thank you for this
Thanks Matt, enjoyed the dissection of Pascal's wager.
Pleas do another video like this. It's informative and entertaining
Great video Matt.
you should have taken off some sunglasses at the end when you said "its not a safe bet... its the perfect con" *removes sunglasses* to show emphasis.
great job matt on the series so far!
Really high quality video! Nice.
Wonderfully done! Keep these coming, nothing more annoying than coming across the same argument time and time again.
I have followed your work for years and love all of it - please keep it up!!
Great video Matt, thanks.
Very well done. Can't wait for more.
Matt. Enjoying your videos. You are a good teacher; you explain quite complex philosophical concepts in quite a simple and straightforward way; you also apply them in real and practical ways rather than simply talking in a theoretical way.
In another life you would of made a good Preacher......
I absolutely love this series. I live in Montgomery, Alabama and unsurprisingly* I come across my fair share of theists who bombard me with weak arguments for God. I've always been a fan of arguments put forth by Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris etc. but watching videos of their talks and debates is a poor form of preparation and practice for me. In searching for a way to arm myself with the best possible arguments and strategies for debating I've become a huge fan of Matt D. and just discovered the Atheist Debates series. Great great GREAT videos!
*Although the majority of the population of the Bible Belt fits the bill of the quintessential southern theist, some of you may be shocked at the rate at which atheism/agnosticism is gaining a strong foothold down here, especially among high school students and young adults.
Can't upvote this enough! Looking forward to seeing thorough rebuttals to all other arguments for gods.
Thank you Matt for making this your life's work (A major part).