Comments on: Implied Odds Out The Wazoo http://www.billrini.com/2005/03/25/implied-odds-out-the-wazoo/ Bill Rini's Poker Weblog Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:04:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: dragonystic http://www.billrini.com/2005/03/25/implied-odds-out-the-wazoo/#comment-458 dragonystic Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000 http://www.billrini.com/?p=252#comment-458 That's not Mean Gene's argument, that's Pascal's Wager. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager That’s not Mean Gene’s argument, that’s Pascal’s Wager.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal’s_Wager

]]> By: scott cunningham http://www.billrini.com/2005/03/25/implied-odds-out-the-wazoo/#comment-459 scott cunningham Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000 http://www.billrini.com/?p=252#comment-459 Yes, given risk vs. reward, it does seem rational to believe in God. But, for christianity, the associated costs of following Christ are much larger than simply going to church and not murdering people. It requires "faith" which cannot be selected. That is something which seems to me to undermine Pascal's wager somewhat. Faith, whle it does not require 100% confidence in the veracity of the resurrection of Christ (for instance) requires a certain level of sincereity, volition and hope. And I don't see how that could flow out of calculus. Yes, given risk vs. reward, it does seem rational to believe in God. But, for christianity, the associated costs of following Christ are much larger than simply going to church and not murdering people. It requires “faith” which cannot be selected. That is something which seems to me to undermine Pascal’s wager somewhat. Faith, whle it does not require 100% confidence in the veracity of the resurrection of Christ (for instance) requires a certain level of sincereity, volition and hope. And I don’t see how that could flow out of calculus.

]]> By: Mean Gene http://www.billrini.com/2005/03/25/implied-odds-out-the-wazoo/#comment-460 Mean Gene Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000 http://www.billrini.com/?p=252#comment-460 Both points taken. I didn't think I was making some brilliant insight there, just placing it in a somewhat-pokerlike context. In trying to rationalize religious faith, deciding that you're better off believing than not doesn't get you very far when your faith is seriously tested. On the other hand, when I hear someone say that believing in God is stupid, or that only stupid people could believe in an omniscient yet invisible deity, that rationalization comes back into play. Its an argument that can't ever be fully resolved...unless God comes down and says, "OK, that's it, everybody outta the pool!". Both points taken. I didn’t think I was making some brilliant insight there, just placing it in a somewhat-pokerlike context. In trying to rationalize religious faith, deciding that you’re better off believing than not doesn’t get you very far when your faith is seriously tested.

On the other hand, when I hear someone say that believing in God is stupid, or that only stupid people could believe in an omniscient yet invisible deity, that rationalization comes back into play. Its an argument that can’t ever be fully resolved…unless God comes down and says, “OK, that’s it, everybody outta the pool!”.

]]> By: Absinthe http://www.billrini.com/2005/03/25/implied-odds-out-the-wazoo/#comment-461 Absinthe Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000 http://www.billrini.com/?p=252#comment-461 It doesn't take a Sklansky to shoot down the implied-odds argument. The requirements may not be onerous but the selection is a crapshoot, since they require not only that God exist but that said God exists <i>precisely as advertised</i>. There's really no reason to believe that any God is a benevolent, omnipotent softie other than that we would like it to be true; your "prize" for your belief could just as well be the flaying of your spiritual nerve endings for all eternity. Nor is there any reason to believe that any flavor of Christianity is preferable to any Islamic sect, animistic belief, Zoroastrianism, &c. Me, I'm hoping some stem-cell discovery comes along that means I don't ever <i>have</i> to find out whether or not there's an afterlife. It doesn’t take a Sklansky to shoot down the implied-odds argument. The requirements may not be onerous but the selection is a crapshoot, since they require not only that God exist but that said God exists precisely as advertised. There’s really no reason to believe that any God is a benevolent, omnipotent softie other than that we would like it to be true; your “prize” for your belief could just as well be the flaying of your spiritual nerve endings for all eternity. Nor is there any reason to believe that any flavor of Christianity is preferable to any Islamic sect, animistic belief, Zoroastrianism, &c.

Me, I’m hoping some stem-cell discovery comes along that means I don’t ever have to find out whether or not there’s an afterlife.

]]>