I’ve been away for a while, enjoying the few days after my birthday and working on a few side projects, but now I’m back. Celebrate if you must.
A while back, my friend Alex made two simple pie charts showing Pascal’s wager and the fallacy behind it.
![GP1-full[1]](http://gaytheist.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/gp1-full1.jpg?w=461&h=350)
![GP2-full[1]](http://gaytheist.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/gp2-full1.jpg?w=461&h=397)
I think the graphic interpretation of Pascal’s wager would be very good in highlighting the error of Pascal’s argument during a debate, but two things stand out as inaccurate about the charts. They’re not debilitating to the charts’ purpose, but I would feel weird to leave them here without saying any more on them.
- The second chart still assumes that the probability of there being no god is the same probability of a god (any god) existing. It does not take into account that the existence of the supernatural is far less likely than the nonexistence of the supernatural.
- The second chart uses “God A” through “God Z.” This is where I get picky. I would prefer a chart that named individual gods. Using letters to differentiate gods vastly limits the chart to a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the gods that have “existed” throughout human history. Also, using the names of gods would be far more effective when putting Christians in their place. When they see Yahweh smashed up against a few thousand other names in the large black mess of text on the deity side of the chart, it would probably make a bigger impact.
But the charts are still good. I like ‘em.
I dig it…
If he incorporates the slight modifications, please repost. :)
~Dan
http://jazzsick.wordpress.com/
Comment by postymcposterton — 19 May 2008 @ 11:31 am
Here’s the problem with the second chart: it assumes that the likelihood of each god is the same, when it should be easy enough to identify which are obviously created by humans (I know you think they all fall under this category, but some are just more thought out than others), the decent tries, and the masterfully conceived concepts. Under this I would think that the God of the Bible would rise above the rest for several reasons which I could go into.
Just as we wouldn’t say say that all works of art are of equal worth and consideration, I think the same should apply to the gods as well.
Comment by Trey — 19 May 2008 @ 12:24 pm
Trey, is there any actual criteria for deciding which gods are more likely than other gods, or is it just decided on which ones you, personally, are more comfortable with? Each god whose name is still known is a god who, at one point, was very real to somebody. It wouldn’t be fair to that god to discredit him because no one believes in him anymore.
Comment by Rev. Reed Braden — 19 May 2008 @ 12:40 pm
I haven’t figured out the criteria yet, but I would appreciate some help if you can offer some. I will admit that I am a bit partial to one God, but I don’t think that would disqualify me from being a judge.
Why not disqualify a god for not having stamina? I think that is a very important characteristic. Also, gods that inhabit physical places we can visit and verify should hold a little less of a place, at least if they aren’t there when we visit. If they are there, then they should get some extra points.
Comment by Trey — 19 May 2008 @ 1:26 pm
I think gods like Hirohito, Kim Il Sung and Siddhartha Gautama–people who were alive in recorded history and who proclaimed themselves gods, or enlightened super-human beings–should be more likely than those that were never on Earth to begin with. We know Guatama, Sung and Hirohito existed.
This only one-third helps your god though, Trey. You still have to deal with Yahweh and the Holy Ghostie, neither of which had biographers while on Earth.
Comment by Rev. Reed Braden — 19 May 2008 @ 1:40 pm
We should rank Gods the same way we rank Fortean phenomena: the more evidence there is of a creature, the more likely that the creature exists. For example, the Jersey Devil was never photographed, but Bigfoot has been photographed, videotaped, and we even have casts of his big feet. So once we find an 8mm of Old Testament God stomping through some underbrush, he’ll jump to the top of the chart. I forget where I was going with this.
Comment by BRW — 19 May 2008 @ 2:25 pm
And don’t forget guitar gods, like Eddie Van Halen and Steve Vai…
Vai can kick YHWH’s nuts on a 6-string…
~Dan
http://jazzsick.wordpress.com/
Comment by postymcposterton — 19 May 2008 @ 8:30 pm
Interesting to see the numbers represented graphically. I think I have a problem with the second chart, too, though. Why just 26 Gods? Or a few thousand? Isn’t it more like 30,000? Lol!
We have a slight problem with Pascal’s Wager as well and did a short write up of our opinions. One hopeful believer could never play it 100% safe.
Comment by Ted Goas — 20 May 2008 @ 12:04 am
Who cares which “gods” are more likely to exist than others? The point of the charts is to show why Pascal’s Wager doesn’t work, or at least isn’t a good betting strategy. It really doesn’t matter at all if the “Jehova” slice is three times the size of the “Pan” slice, or whatever – the point is, there is no 50-50 choice to make.
On the other hand, everyone knows that Pascal was being facetious when he came up with his wager anyway. More of a philosophical joke, and only a-holes get anal on jokes.
Comment by Nobody — 20 May 2008 @ 1:40 pm
Excellent points on the deficiencies of “Pascal’s wager”.
I’ll add another one (and I really like Pascal a LOT).
Pascal’s premise is based on the “at least you lived a good life” idea as the alternative if God does not exist.
How do you determine what is a good life (in the sense Pascal means…not a pragmatic “this works for me” thing…I don’t think that is what Pascal meant) if there is no one in a “determining” position (God)?
I think St. Paul saw this clearly when he said “If Jesus isn’t raised from the dead we are pitiful. Better to eat drink and be merry before we die.”
As for your chart, I certainly think openness to all types of revelations and divine truths are good. One may just be more overarching (in the same we we seem to recognize that openness to truth in all traditions is overarching).
Last thing (first time to your site!). As a “Christian” I believe the Atheist critique of “religion” is generally dead on. I could not agree more.
I think the Old Testament prophets would agree with it as well, as would Jesus.
Religion is the real enemy of folk and of faith.
Comment by bakdon — 20 May 2008 @ 3:01 pm
Ted, you try putting 30,000 gods into a pie graph and get back to me.
Nobody, were you calling me an a-hole or Trey and a-hole? Either way, I totally agree. (Just kidding, Trey.) Why won’t people who comment to call me an asshole use their real names? I can’t commend your judge of character properly if I have to call you a nobody.
Bakdon, you’re an idiot. Stop trying to reconcile religion and philosophy. You say religion is the enemy, but you are, in fact, religious. You follow the Christian religion. Pascal, also an idiot in his later days, has no bearing on reality. You say that Pascal says that we must live good lives but who can tell us what’s good without a god… bullshit. We don’t have to live good lives but we can if we want… and most people find it best to live good lives. Good is not what your imaginary sky daddy defines it as but it is what causes the least harm. You’re complicating the situation and trying to bamboozle us into thinking that morality is so complicated that it must come from a god. It’s not difficult at all. We evolved the ethic of reciprocity and that’s all we need to be “good.” It’s utterly simple and does not require a governor in the clouds.
You’re new to the site, so I’m going to apologise just this once for calling you an idiot. But if you act like an idiot here again, I will call you an idiot again and I won’t apologise. That’s how it works here. My goal isn’t pleasing my readers but making them question everything I or anyone else says and getting them thinking, and, yes, getting them mad.
If you’re not mad at damn near everything in this “post-9/11 world,” on both sides of every argument, you’re doing it wrong. If you’re not mad that I just used the events of 9/11 to define the current era, you’re doing it wrong again.
I plan on making you mad… at religion, at faith, at those who have lied to you, at St. Paul especially (an asshole of the highest order of stinky assholes), at your government, at society and at me. If you’re not comfortable with that, steer clear of the comment sections.
If you play by the rules, we should be able to have some fun. If you don’t play by the rules, we might have even more fun. Now put on your street-fighting clothes and welcome to Homosecular Gaytheist.
Comment by Rev. Reed Braden — 20 May 2008 @ 4:20 pm