Pascal's Wager (Again?)

[Pygoscelis]

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but in another thread somebody asked about Pascal's Wager and its flaws (as I see it).

Blaise Pascal was a mathematician living a few centuries ago and apparently he was really motivated to believe in a higher power but was having some trouble doing so. So he invented a "wager" that he thought made sense. It doesn't.

I'll paraphrase his famous wager and then give four flaws in it as they pop into my mind. There are more than these four.

Pascal's Wager:

1. Either God exists or God does not exist.

2. If God exists and you worship him, you go to Heaven.

3. If God exists and you fail to worhip him. you go to Hell.

4. If God does not exist, you lose nothing by worshiping him and gain nothing for not worshiping him.

Flaw Number One: False Dichotomy

The first flaw in this logic should be blatantly obvious to Muslims here, and other non-christian theists. Pascal was talking about the Christian God. He didn't seem to realize his false dichotomy. There could be a God and he could be one of the hundreds that you have not chosen to worship.

Many religious texts, including the bible, have themes of God forbidding the worship of false Gods/Idols, an themes of punishing those who do so. If you picked the wrong God, it is plausible that you will be punished MORE than somebody who picked no God.

Flaw Number Two: Directing Belief

The wager assumes that one can flick belief in God off and on like a light switch.

But belief doesn't work like that. Many atheists I know have tried to believe, earnestly. They come from religious families and felt comfortable with their belief in God and the relationship they perceived that they had with Christ before they lost it. But then logic and reason just got in the way and thy slipped away from the clutches of religious dogma.

And to the outsider, such as myself, who never believed, belief in God is alien. I may as well try to believe in Santa. No matter how hard I may try, it just won't work.

Belief is not as easy to direct as Pascal's Wager suggests.

Flaw Number Three: Believing for the Wrong Reasons

If your belief in God is based only on something as shallow as reward/punishment and not on true belief, love of the Lord, all that warm happy stuff, all that righteous stuff religious folks go on about (I'm an atheist so I don't pretend to understand it), isn't something wrong with this picture?

Flaw Number Four: You Do So Lose By Believing!

If there is no God, you lose nothing by believing and following his directives, so Pascal claims. This is just not so.

Religion is a system of rules and not all of them are beneficial absent the existence of the deity. Sure, it tells you to have some morals which you'd have anyway, but also adds oddities and seemingly arbitrary constraints on your behaviour. It also causes you to waste time on prayer (it is a waste if their turns out to be no God) which could be spent more productively.

The multitde of negatives religious belief brings with it could fill a large book, an its not one I'm looking to write here, as I'm sure it would offend many here (and its not the topic of this thread). My point here is that it is not so clear as Pascal believes it to be that you "lose nothing by believing if there is no God".

[Trumble]

The traditional version of "one", which was raised at the time, was not non-Christian theists and perceptions of God, but non Catholic Christian ones, Pascal being a devout Catholic and his critics being Christians of one sort or another. The same argument applies as in the broader context, of course.

Four is incorrect. Pascal never claimed you 'lose nothing', in that case there would be no 'wager'. The argument is that by believing you stand to lose the least if you are wrong; he acknowledged that if you were wrong you would 'lose' in much the way you describe. The point is that if you 'chose' to disbelieve and were wrong you would lose a lot more.

Pascal's wager is rarely taken seriously as an argument for 'believing' any more, but is still used in philosophical argument to cover other situations where the same objections don't arise.

Basically the choices are;

1. Believe and are right, BIG gain, no loss.

2. Believe and are wrong, no gain, small loss

3. Disbelieve and are right, small gain, no loss.

4. Disbelieve and are wrong, no gain, BIG loss.

His point was that, given those, it was smarter to believe. Both 'one' and 'two' are killer objections, although 'one' can be escaped by claiming belief in one version of God (be it Jewish, muslim, Catholic, Protestant, whatever) is good enough... not a claim Pascal made.

[Malaikah]

The first flaw in this logic should be blatantly obvious to Muslims here, and other non-christian theists. Pascal was talking about the Christian God. He didn't seem to realize his false dichotomy. There could be a God and he could be one of the hundreds that you have not chosen to worship.

Many religious texts, including the bible, have themes of God forbidding the worship of false Gods/Idols, an themes of punishing those who do so. If you picked the wrong God, it is plausible that you will be punished MORE than somebody who picked no God.

Why? Are you telling me you didn't know that Muslim also believe that worshipping a God other than the real God is a one way ticket to hell?:?

If you are referring to:

3. If God exists and you fail to worhip him. you go to Hell.

Then by worshipping a different God you are still not worshipping God Himself. And if a person doesn't believe in God at all, he is still worshipping something whether he likes it or not, which would usually be his desires.

The only thing missing in this 'wager' is that he didn't mention that even if you worship God alone without an partners, you might still have to do some time in hell depending on your sin level.

[Trumble]

Why? Are you telling me you didn't know that Muslim also believe that worshipping a God other than the real God is a one way ticket to hell?:?

No, he is perfectly well aware of that, that's the whole point.

Pascal was assuming that there was only one choice to be made, between believing in (his own Catholic version of) God or not believing in God. The counter-argument is that it isn't that simple, you could believe in and choose between the Catholic God, Protestant God, Jewish God, muslim God or whatever, but only one of those could be 'right'.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Malaikah]

Oh okay. But that isn't so much a flaw as it is an oversimplification, is it?

[lolwatever]

^^ umm where did he bring in the idea of a christian or a non christian god?

he simply said (according to pygo's first post)

1. Either God exists or God does not exist.

which is not a false dichotomy :rolleyes:

----

as for the other 3 points, my concern is that they're far too "undefined"... like suppose God says 'worship me this way' and then the person decides to worship his own way out of arrogance, does that mean he'll be rewarded for that?

but if you take them into islam's context for example... then yes i do agree with points 2 and 3.

As for 4, that sort of worship is not accepted (in Islam) because you don't really believe in god... you're just doing things out of doubt..

[Trumble]

Oh okay. But that isn't so much a flaw as it is an oversimplification, is it?

No, it's a major flaw in the argument, which has that oversimplification as an implied premise.

[Abdul Fattah]

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but in another thread somebody asked about Pascal's Wager and its flaws (as I see it).

hi, thanks for your insightfull post. It showt that you indeed try to think these things trough which is a good sign. Allow me to answer the points you raise from an Islamic pov to the best of my knowledge.

Flaw Number One: False Dichotomy
The first flaw in this logic should be blatantly obvious to Muslims here, and other non-christian theists. Pascal was talking about the Christian God. He didn't seem to realize his false dichotomy. There could be a God and he could be one of the hundreds that you have not chosen to worship.

n Islam every deed is judged by it's intention. If a person worships a false God out of ignorance with good intentions that's a whole different thing from a person who has good knowledge of Islam but yet converts to Christianity because he "likes" it more. In the Qur'an it says: "If you desire a religion other then Islam it will not be permitted". That is an interesting difference between other religions who simply claim that if you have another belief you're already sinning.

Flaw Number Two: Directing Belief
The wager assumes that one can flick belief in God off and on like a light switch.
But belief doesn't work like that. Many atheists I know have tried to believe, earnestly. They come from religious families and felt comfortable with their belief in God and the relationship they perceived that they had with Christ before they lost it. But then logic and reason just got in the way and thy slipped away from the clutches of religious dogma.
And to the outsider, such as myself, who never believed, belief in God is alien. I may as well try to believe in Santa. No matter how hard I may try, it just won't work. Belief is not as easy to direct as Pascal's Wager suggests.

I understand what you mean, you can't force a belief on oneself if there are pertinent questions standing in the way. And if one would try either way for opportunistic reasons then the faith would be insincere and perhaps not accepted. Seems like a dilemma. And as a former atheist, I know exactly where you're coming from. However, now I no longer believe that fully. I've come to believe that to some extend this is not a matter of "mental capabilities" but more like a matter of willingness. From the moment I started to be "willing" to believe I found the answers to my pertinent questions who kept me from believing rather quickly. Of course that's just me, I'm willing to accept there are some people out there who genuinely want to believe but whom's minds are just inhibited by questions they can not answer. But what do these people do with such questions? Do they try to look for an answer or do they just accept the question is un-answerable and allow it to inhibit their mind?

Flaw Number Three: Believing for the Wrong Reasons
If your belief in God is based only on something as shallow as reward/punishment and not on true belief, love of the Lord, all that warm happy stuff, all that righteous stuff religious folks go on about (I'm an atheist so I don't pretend to understand it), isn't something wrong with this picture?

As mentioned in the previous alinea's, each action is judged by it's intentions. Also interesting is that according to Islam, believing or disbelieving gives no guarantee. We will be judged on our actions. In a way people who commit severe sin but do believe and have knowledge are worse then people who commit those same sins out of ignorance.

Flaw Number Four: You Do So Lose By Believing!
If there is no God, you lose nothing by believing and following his directives, so Pascal claims. This is just not so. Religion is a system of rules and not all of them are beneficial absent the existence of the deity. Sure, it tells you to have some morals which you'd have anyway, but also adds oddities and seemingly arbitrary constraints on your behaviour. It also causes you to waste time on prayer (it is a waste if their turns out to be no God) which could be spent more productively.

It is true that "nothing" was a bit exaggerated. However the loss is relatively small and neglectable compared to the loss in the other situation: eternal torture and pain. Next to that I would like to argue that the loss is not obsolete. Take the example you give; it is true if there would be no God (astagfirAllah) then prayer would be unanswered and loose it's direct purpose. However that doesn't make it useless. I'm sure many psychologist will tell you that praying will have a curing and relaxing effect on the psyche of an individual and bring the person in peace. Praying five times a day also gives a person stability and regularity. Of course these "advantages" are small compared to the intended goal of prayer, but still makes them usefull. And I sincerely believe this line of reasoning could be used for any given rule set by Islam. The main purpose of following a rule is always worship trough obedience which in itself is considered useful, but for all of these rules there are always practical benefits to that make life easier. There have been treads here before with challenges to bring a rule that has no practical benefits, and so far none have been brought to my attention. But of course I would encourage you to try and find one either way :)

The multitde of negatives religious belief brings with it could fill a large book, an its not one I'm looking to write here, as I'm sure it would offend many here (and its not the topic of this thread). My point here is that it is not so clear as Pascal believes it to be that you "lose nothing by believing if there is no God".

To even make that previous challenge a bit more exciting. Not only do I believe that each rule has a practical benefit next to it's spiritual benefit. I also believe those practical benefits exceed any negative effects that could come from that same rule.

[wilberhum]

Well then there is me being me.
I think god would not send a atheist to hell. I think god will judge us on the quality of our person. So I think an atheist who is a good person who does good things will go to heaven.

[- Qatada -]

Well then there is me being me.
I think god would not send a atheist to hell. I think god will judge us on the quality of our person. So I think an atheist who is a good person who does good things will go to heaven.

But who decides whats right? For instance prostitution isn't illegal in some countries whereas it is in another. Same can be said about drugs etc. The cultures differ, so each culture has its own 'wrongs' and 'rights'.

This is why we believe that God decides what's wrong and right, not humans as we're prone to error.



Regards.

[wilberhum]

But who decides whats right? For instance prostitution isn't illegal in some countries whereas it is in another. Same can be said about drugs etc. The cultures differ, so each culture has its own 'wrongs' and 'rights'.

This is why we believe that God decides what's wrong and right, not humans as we're prone to error.

Regards.

Not illegan and good are not the same. :rant:
So you are off to a bad start.
And god desides! You bet he does, but I don't think he droppes in every now and then to give us clues. :thumbs_do
I think it is all a matter of our own intent.

[Trumble]

But who decides whats right? For instance prostitution isn't illegal in some countries whereas it is in another. Same can be said about drugs etc. The cultures differ, so each culture has its own 'wrongs' and 'rights'.

This is why we believe that God decides what's wrong and right, not humans as we're prone to error.

Prostitution and drugs are rather loaded examples (and both, particularly drugs, are considered as 'wrong' in most places), but what exactly is the problem with such variation? As you say, cultures vary. Why does there have to be an absolute 'wrong' or 'right', or an 'error' on somebody's part, in matters where it is less obvious?

As an aside, there's nothing wrong with a little 'error', either. It's how people learn.

[Pygoscelis]

I am likely the only one on this board who advocates in favour of the legalization of both prostitution and marijuana. Both do little harm and greater harm comes from attaching them to the criminal element than not. But thats another thread entirely.

[wilberhum]

I am likely the only one on this board who advocates in favour of the legalization of both prostitution and marijuana. Both do little harm and greater harm comes from attaching them to the criminal element than not. But thats another thread entirely.

Hate to burst your bubble. :D I agree with you.
I don't think marijuana is any worse than beer. :thumbs_do
As for prostitution, most in the trade are victoms of serious abuse and have ended up in a situation where they see no way out. Mostly they are people who are in a desperate situation and need help. Making them criminales is not help. That just further victomises them.
:mad:

[- Qatada -]

There's the contradiction, if we were to prefer the law of the ruler [while people have different opinions in regard to what they think is wrong/right] - then we're worshipping or giving our obedience to someone other than God, which may be a form of worship if it contradicts what God has sent to His Messengers.

[wilberhum]

There's the contradiction, if we were to prefer the law of the ruler [while people have different opinions in regard to what they think is wrong/right] - then we're worshipping or giving our obedience to someone other than God, which may be a form of worship if it contradicts what God has sent to His Messengers.

You still run the posibility that your god is a false god and there are no messengers or your messengers really wern't.
It is all a matter of belief.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Well then there is me being me.
I think god would not send a atheist to hell. I think god will judge us on the quality of our person. So I think an atheist who is a good person who does good things will go to heaven.

:salamext:

just out of curiosity do you think that the concept of hell was created by human imagination? The three major religions of this world are following what the mind created... a strange thought.

Also you seem to think that only the people who are bad on earth go to hell, so you dont consider it evil to reject the one who gives you absolutely everything from your wealth/health to your beloved children?

[wilberhum]

:salamext:

just out of curiosity do you think that the concept of hell was created by human imagination? The three major religions of this world are following what the mind created... a strange thought.

Also you seem to think that only the people who are bad on earth go to hell, so you dont consider it evil to reject the one who gives you absolutely everything from your wealth/health to your beloved children?

I suspect that all religious concepts were created by humans.
If there is a hell and god is good and just, only bad people would go there.
I find no evil in someone who does not beleive in the existance of god. I think calling non-belief, rejection, is inaccurate.

[- Qatada -]

I suspect that all religious concepts were created by humans.
If there is a hell and god is good and just, only bad people would go there.
I find no evil in someone who does not beleive in the existance of god. I think calling non-belief, rejection, is inaccurate.

Those who don't do good to please God, and those who reject God's reward in the hereafter - why should they be rewarded by Him?

Anyway at the time of the Messenger's of Allaah - the people never rejected God - they actually believed in a Higher Being who created everything, but associated others in worship with Him, these other objects are desires, philosophies, man-made laws etc.



Regards.

[wilberhum]

Those who don't do good to please God, and those who reject God's reward in the hereafter - why should they be rewarded by Him?

Anyway at the time of the Messenger's of Allaah - the people never rejected God - they actually believed in a Higher Being who created everything, but associated others in worship with Him, these other objects are desires, philosophies, man-made laws etc.



Regards.

There you go again, non-belief = rejection. :mad:
Why would god not reward a good person? :thumbs_do
The people never rejected god? Which people? Which god?

[brenton]

In Christian thought, goodness is not weighed on a scale, but based on whether a person has broken something in humanity--created a bigger mess than what he or she was left to begin with. Bad is not weighed against, but regardless of the good, the bad needs healing by God so a human can be whole.
This is different than heaven or hell, but the hollywood religion most people think is Christianity is a much different thing.

On the original idea of Pascal's Wager: the logic is perhaps not perfect, but the principle of belief is not bad--if the religion is itself good for society and for the human. I think Mormonism is bad for both, though it is getting better, so you can lose in that wager. I think Buddhism, by contrast, is on the whole good, so a person would win (though the wager wouldn't make sense to some Buddhists because of the belief in God issue).

But it is true: I believe in God because I do. It was not evidence (like apologetics or arguments), or upbringing (atheistic, or at least hedonistic), but experience of the Holy Spirit. Despite the fact that I found Christianity abhorrent, I encountered Jesus, and now I can't help but believe.

[IzakHalevas]

just out of curiosity do you think that the concept of hell was created by human imagination? The three major religions of this world are following what the mind created... a strange thought.

Judaism has a much different view of "hell" then the other 2 faiths do. Judaism's hell, is very very different, but not as effective at scaring people into converting if you wish for your faith to have a huge following.

[- Qatada -]

There you go again, non-belief = rejection. :mad:
Why would god not reward a good person? :thumbs_do
The people never rejected god? Which people? Which god?

How can someone claim to obey God when they don't even believe that God decided what's good for us or not?

If a person can't differentiate between good and bad [because they have rejected the criterion] - then how can they be rewarded by God if their rejecting His signs?


That's why faith and deeds come hand in hand, if a person rejects one of them then the other isn't worthy of much.



Your God is One God, the One who created the heavens and the earth. The One who gave you life and has destined for you death. The One to whom you will return without a doubt, and be asked about all that you did. Then you'll be rewarded by God or punished by God depending on your deeds.

However your deeds are worthless if you don't do them to please God Alone, and the only way you can know what is good is by referring to the criterion [Al-Furqaan - the Qur'an.]



Regards.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

wilberhum disbelieving is God is rejecting him. because he exists and your turning away from him.

the truth shouldnt anger you.

[wilberhum]

How can someone claim to obey God when they don't even believe that God decided what's good for us or not?

Standard word twist. Not what I said and you know it. Just because I don’t believe that god drops by every once and a while to tell one person whats up means god hasn’t decided what right or wrong, good or evil.

If a person can't differentiate between good and bad [because they have rejected the criterion] -

That is the same old garbage. Atheists can not be good because they have no morals.

how can they be rewarded by God if their rejecting His signs?

Why not? I think a good god would. I guess we will just have to leave that up to god.

That's why faith and deeds come hand in hand

Yes, just like a fish and a bicycle. More atheists have no morals.

if a person rejects one of them then the other isn't worthy of much.

Now I think that lacks morals. Only be good for a heavenly reward? Is that your concept of morals? How about being good because it is the right thing to do?

However your deeds are worthless if you don't do them to please God Alone.

Now I think that is a sad way to look at life. Never do anything because it helps some one.
Never do the right thing simply because it is the right thing.
No wonder you think atheists have no morals.
It seams you don’t have a real grasp on what it is to have morals.

[Pygoscelis]

This makes me wonder if theists are capable of conceiving the actual concept of disbelif in their God.

If you don't believe in something you can not reject it. No decision is made of whether to accept or reject what is not thought to exist. Obeying directives from an imaginary (or thought to be imaginary) overseer is insanity, not obedience. To punish somebody for failing to do so is equally nonsensical.

[- Qatada -]

Standard word twist. Not what I said and you know it. Just because I don’t believe that god drops by every once and a while to tell one person whats up means god hasn’t decided what right or wrong, good or evil.

Then you gota wonder why God created you.

That is the same old garbage. Atheists can not be good because they have no morals.

When did i say that? Infact i believe that atheists can have morals because of the fitrah [natural inclination to do good] which God has created for us.

Why not? I think a good god would. I guess we will just have to leave that up to god.

That's your thinking, you've got no proof to back that up.

Yes, just like a fish and a bicycle. More atheists have no morals.

I never said that, now you're the one taking things out of context.

Now I think that lacks morals. Only be good for a heavenly reward? Is that your concept of morals? How about being good because it is the right thing to do?

How is being good 'the right thing to do' - do you have any specific proof for that? You don't because you don't believe that God's sent anything down to back that.

Now I think that is a sad way to look at life. Never do anything because it helps some one.

Never do the right thing simply because it is the right thing.
No wonder you think atheists have no morals.
It seams you don’t have a real grasp on what it is to have morals.

I don't think you understand. If we do favours for others, then we're simply doing it because we want a favour back. In islaam we do favours for people and we don't expect favours from them, rather we expect our reward from God instead, which infact makes the muslim who practises this have better morals. Because they don't keep mentioning to others of the favours they've done.



Regards.

[wilberhum]

wilberhum disbelieving is God is rejecting him. because he exists and your turning away from him.

the truth shouldnt anger you.

Disbelieving in God is rejecting him

To the same extent that not believing in little green from mars is rejecting them.
If a person could looks at the world and see earthquakes, eruptions, famine, floods and say that they find it illogical that god would create a place like that for his special creation. They may also find it illogical for a good god to allow so many evil people to do horrible things.
I don’t think god would send a good person who only does good deeds to hell, because there was a flaw in there logic. But that is just my vision of god, I could be wrong, just as you could be wrong.

the truth shouldnt anger you.

What makes you think the truth angers me?
And what makes you think you have a handle on truth?
Because you believe does not make it ture.

[Pygoscelis]

Then you gota wonder why God created you.

For any number of reasons. Maybe it was a child God's science experiment. Maybe God raises us like cattle and values ascended souls. To think that God's sole purpose for creating us is solely for our benefit is awfully self centred, don't you think?

When did i say that? Infact i believe that atheists can have morals because of the fitrah [natural inclination to do good] which God has created for us.

The quote above contradicts the quote below

If we do favours for others, then we're simply doing it because we want a favour back.

If we have a natural inclination to do what is good (socially constructive) then we have a natural inclination to help others. Period. No expectation of reward.

In islaam we do favours for people and we don't expect favours from them, rather we expect our reward from God instead, which infact makes the muslim who practises this have better morals.

If this is truly your system, and I doubt it is, then the opposite is true. You only do good by people because you expect a reward? It isn't relevant from whom you expect it. This is the only reason you do good? I think this isn't so.

[wilberhum]

Then you gota wonder why God created you.

You are right. I do wonder.

When did i say that?

You didn’t say that. But I see no way some of your statements can be made unless you believe atheist can not have morals.

That's your thinking, you've got no proof to back that up.

Oh no, here comes the Proof junk. What you call Proof is Circular logic at best.
There is no proof.

How is being good 'the right thing to do'

Da! You think evil is the right thing to do?

do you have any specific proof for that?

Of course not. There is no proof about anything that involves god of spirits.

You don't because you don't believe that God's sent anything down to back that.

Now I see your Proof. I believe that god sent something down. And what I believe he send down is my Proof.

If we do favours for others, then we're simply doing it because we want a favour back.

Now that is sad and empty. This morning I saw a crippled man looking for hand outs. I gave him some money. I expect no favor from him in retune. What I gave is such a small portion of what god has given me that I don’t it will grant me great merit. It was just the right thing to do.
I guess that concept is beyond you.
Being good for the sake of being good, feals good. But I, as most, need to do more of it.
Try it some time, you might like it too.

[- Qatada -]

For any number of reasons. Maybe it was a child God's science experiment. Maybe God raises us like cattle and values ascended souls. To think that God's sole purpose for creating us is solely for our benefit is awfully self centred, don't you think?

There is only one God and God doesn't beget nor is He begotten. Because that doesn't befit His Majesty. When people do things in life, they do it in order to gain attention so they are accepted by others. Hence instead of doing things simply for others, we have a higher purpose of doing it to please God.

The quote above contradicts the quote below

No it doesn't.

If we have a natural inclination to do what is good (socially constructive) then we have a natural inclination to help others. Period. No expectation of reward.

That's the problem, we as humans do want reward. It's called positive reinforcement. That's proven in psychology.

If this is truly your system, and I doubt it is, then the opposite is true. You only do good by people because you expect a reward? It isn't relevant from whom you expect it. This is the only reason you do good? I think this isn't so.

How do you decide what our system is? We do good in order to get God's Mercy hence His reward. This makes the person superior infront of God's eyes because even though this person can't see God, they still strive to please Him. And how do they know that God exists? Because of God's signs that He has given us on the earth.




Regards.

[wilberhum]

There is only one God and God doesn't beget nor is He begotten. Because that doesn't befit His Majesty. When people do things in life, they do it in order to gain attention so they are accepted by others. Hence instead of doing things simply for others, we have a higher purpose of doing it to please God.

That is what you believe. What I/we (Pygoscelis) believe is different.

No it doesn't.

Oh but it really does. I think you need a reread.

That's the problem, we as humans do want reward. It's called positive reinforcement. That's proven in psychology.

But some of us think “Doing good is it’s own reward”. Try it, you might like it.

This makes the person superior infront of God's eyes

There is that old tried and true theme. Superiority! I think the concept of superiority comes from the devil and is the source of most of the world’s evil.

[Pygoscelis]

That's the problem, we as humans do want reward. It's called positive reinforcement. That's proven in psychology.

This is a fallacy of logic. You refer to operant conditioning. It is proven in psychology that this is one way to modify behaviour. It has never been claimed by anybody I know of until you now that this is the only way to modify behaviour. It has certainly never been claimed by any scientist that this is the sole source of behaviour.

An if you maintain that it is then you are blatantly contradicting yourself, as man can not be inherently inclined to do anything, good or bad, under this view.

Nature vs Nurture both contribute to a person's behaviour.

So l ong as we are talking psych, then you should look into the research on development of morality. Reward/Punishment morality is the most base and earliest to develop, but most of us develop beyond this by our teenage years.

Can you honestly tell me that the only reason you do anything kind and avoid doing anything nasty is because you expect to be rewarded by a God? If so, that makes you a psychopath (by the classic definition) and I hope you never lose your faith.

[- Qatada -]

That is what you believe. What I/we (Pygoscelis) believe is different.

Yeah then that's upto you init.

Oh but it really does. I think you need a reread.

Explain the contradiction.

But some of us think “Doing good is it’s own reward”. Try it, you might like it.

Well thats not the case, its proven in psychology that people want positive reinforcement. Or they may obey due to punishment or negative reinforcement.

There is that old tried and true theme. Superiority! I think the concept of superiority comes from the devil and is the source of most of the world’s evil.

And did i say that i know whether i'm superior or not? I said that it's for God to decide. So i don't have the right to claim that i'm better than anyone else.

[- Qatada -]

This is a fallacy of logic. You refer to operant conditioning. It is proven in psychology that this is one way to modify behaviour. It has never been claimed by anybody I know of until you now that this is the only way to modify behaviour. It has certainly never been claimed by any scientist that this is the sole source of behaviour.

An if you maintain that it is then you are blatantly contradicting yourself, as man can not be inherently inclined to do anything, good or bad, under this view.

Nature vs Nurture both contribute to a person's behaviour.

So l ong as we are talking psych, then you should look into the research on development of morality. Reward/Punishment morality is the most base and earliest to develop, but most of us develop beyond this by our teenage years.

Can you honestly tell me that the only reason you do anything kind and avoid doing anything nasty is because you expect to be rewarded by a God? If so, that makes you a psychopath (by the classic definition) and I hope you never lose your faith.

Since when did it apply to the age of 13 only? What about people who work extra hours to get that extra pay? That is positive reinforcement.


Classical conditioning has different views, so i disagree with that. God actually sends down alot of good to us, and just because you havn't experienced that - it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) said that the rich one isn't the one who's wealthy, but the one who's content. And we as muslims are content with what God ordains for us, whereas the one's who turn away from God don't know why some calamity is happening in life, and what the consequences will be.


A blessing from Allaah is that God sends calmness and tranquility into the hearts of the believers, even if their in a tough situation. That's a blessing from Allaah. Yeah you can't see it, but those who have tasted it know that. So playing the 'i cant see it' game isn't worthy of being played.



Regards.

[wilberhum]

Yeah then that's upto you init.

It looks like understanding the situation is beginning to sink in.

Explain the contradiction.

If a person can't differentiate between good and bad [because they have rejected the criterion]
If you can’t take it from there, I can’t help you.

Well thats not the case, its proven in psychology that people want positive reinforcement. Or they may obey due to punishment or negative reinforcement.

I think Pygoscelis explained it best. It is obvious that he knows more than me and shows how little you know.

And did i say that i know whether i'm superior or not? I said that it's for God to decide.

And your good deeds are going to make you superior, right?

So i don't have the right to claim that i'm better than anyone else.

But what do you think? Oh well, best keep that to your self.

[- Qatada -]

It looks like understanding the situation is beginning to sink in.

If a person can't differentiate between good and bad [because they have rejected the criterion]
If you can’t take it from there, I can’t help you.

And are you trying to take things out of context now? I said that the reason why might do good is because of the fitrah that God placed in you, then i said that you might not go along with your fitrah because it can get altered unless the person follows guidance [because the person might go astray from the fitrah to follow their desires, even if these desires go against the limits set by God.]

I think Pygoscelis explained it best. It is obvious that he knows more than me and shows how little you know.

And you know that how? You don't have an answer to my response so you don't need to question 'how much i know.'

And your good deeds are going to make you superior, right?

But what do you think? Oh well, best keep that to your self.

It shows your arrogance, nothing else. You just make it look like i've said i'm better than others. Yet i don't agree with that because i don't even know if God will accept the good off me, that will only be found out on the day of judgement. So i stay quiet, because one of the reasons why people won't enter paradise is through their arrogance.

Infact the one's who follow the guidance feel they shouldn't be arrogant because only God knows who is truely sincere. We work hard to please God, He gives us good through that. But any good or bad we recieve in this world is just a temporary trial, and if we are successful - that will only be confirmed on that day.

[Pygoscelis]

because of the fitrah that God placed in you

So then you aknowledge that there is a nature component in human behaviour? Yet you maintain that punishment/reward is still the only dymanic? Can't you see the contradiction? Re read the posts above.

If people only behave to seek reward and avoid punishment then there can be no nature, or Fitrah as you say. The sole dynamic would be selfish gratification, no nature involved, no being good for the sake of goodness, etc.

Do you or do you not behave just to seek rewards from your God? I think that you avoid this part of the posts above because you do not truly behave only to seek reward and avoid punishment but stating so would unravel your posts above.

We work hard to please God

Again, I hope this isn't the ONLY reason you behave kindly towards others. For if it is then you would be a psychopath and you would be easily led by others. If this was the case, and again I don't think it is, I'd just have to find somebody to convince you that Allah wants X and you'd do X no matter how terrible X was. Is this partly what leads people to terrorism?

[wilberhum]

Infact the one's who follow the guidance feel they shouldn't be arrogant.

No they shouldn’t, but many do. The concept of superiority shows it head many times daily on this forum.

But to the end, I have made my point the best I can.

I believe as I do and you believe as you do.

I do not ask you to believe what I believe, I just ask you to believe that I believe.

And I extend the same to you.

[Abdul Fattah]

This makes me wonder if theists are capable of conceiving the actual concept of disbelif in their God.

If you don't believe in something you can not reject it. No decision is made of whether to accept or reject what is not thought to exist. Obeying directives from an imaginary (or thought to be imaginary) overseer is insanity, not obedience. To punish somebody for failing to do so is equally nonsensical.

Hi Pygoscelis
You should go back to the first page and read my post, I could be wrong, but your argument suggests you missed it.

[Pygoscelis]

Yes. I appologize for getting derailed. I never responded to your post. So I will now.

I've come to believe that to some extend this is not a matter of "mental capabilities" but more like a matter of willingness. From the moment I started to be "willing" to believe I found the answers to my pertinent questions who kept me from believing rather quickly.

Sounds to me like faith. The ability to believe in something despite a lack of any evidence or reason to believe otherwise. Some people are able to do this more than others. Just like some people are able to get into TV shows more than others and suspend disbelief even in the outrageous ones. An ability not without merit, but not one that we all posess equally.

But what do these people do with such questions? Do they try to look for an answer or do they just accept the question is un-answerable and allow it to inhibit their mind?

I would say it depends on the person and I would say most people do a bit of both. And I suppose it depends on how badly they want to know or need to believe a particular viewpoint. And it depends on how easily they are convinced/misled.

Also interesting is that according to Islam, believing or disbelieving gives no guarantee.

But the disbelieving or failing to believe does give a guarantee, correct?

To even make that previous challenge a bit more exciting. Not only do I believe that each rule has a practical benefit next to it's spiritual benefit. I also believe those practical benefits exceed any negative effects that could come from that same rule.

We will have to agree to disagree on that. And to me it isn't each individual rule so much as the collected whole. There is a gstalt to it. But again, that's a bit off topic and I'd rather not get into the many reasons I find belief deplorable, for that would likely get me banned here :D

[Malaikah]

So then you aknowledge that there is a nature component in human behaviour? Yet you maintain that punishment/reward is still the only dymanic? Can't you see the contradiction? Re read the posts above.

There in no contradiction. People will do good because God created us with a natural inclination to do good. However, you understand of what is good and what is not is not purely based only on your natural inclination, it is also influenced by our environment and upbringing. Though we all wish to do good, we differ as to what is good and what is not.

For example, an atheist might believe there is nothing wrong with a little alcohol here and there, but a Muslim recognises that any amount of alcohol is evil. The atheist thinks that way because of his environment and upbringing, and the Muslims thinks that way because he derives his morals from Islam, not from those around him.

Punishment and reward do come in to it as well. You might consider giving charity to be doing a good deed just for the sake of it, because it is a good deed in and of itself, and personal gain has nothing to do with it, right? But that is not true, there is punishment/reward. The reward is that you are satisfying the natural inclination in yourself, knowing that you have done something good for someone who is needy. That makes you happy, and there is the reward right there, the effect that the act has on your feelings.

On the other hand, being stingy and not giving in charity might make a person feel like a jerk, because he has the natural inclination to do good, that feeling of good is a punishment and is based on the persons natural inclination to do good, the person then recognises that he should give in charity to make the feeling of guilt go away and replace it with the happiness of knowing he helped someone.

If people only behave to seek reward and avoid punishment then there can be no nature, or Fitrah as you say. The sole dynamic would be selfish gratification, no nature involved, no being good for the sake of goodness, etc.

I'm sure he did not mean that it is only one or the other. Give him the benefit of the doubt, he isn't the blood hungry monster you guys are making him out to be.

Do you or do you not behave just to seek rewards from your God? I think that you avoid this part of the posts above because you do not truly behave only to seek reward and avoid punishment but stating so would unravel your posts above.

It is perfection of character to seek reward from God alone, and not from others. Meaning, you do not act only to be seen by others, or to satisfy yourself.

An example of giving in charity purely for the sake of God:
1. You know that God loves charity, and love nothing more than pleasing God.

2. You know that God loves selflessness, and so you strive to be selfless, because you love to please God, knowing that what ever God loves is pure goodness.

3. You see a poor person and because of what you know about God's attitude towards charity, and the fitrah that he has placed in you (i.e. you naturally feel sorry for them), you wish to give them charity, with the following intentions:

a. to please God
b. this secondary intention is like a subset of intention 'a', you want to help the poor because of the natural inclination that God has places in you. In other words, acting to please God does not mean that you don't care about the poor and helping them.

4. Knowing that you are acting only to please God, so you give the charity in secret so that even the person who receives the money doesn't know who gave it to him, and the persons left hand doesn't know what his hand has given. In other words, you want no thanks or reward from the poor themselves, you want your reward from God.

Again, I hope this isn't the ONLY reason you behave kindly towards others.

It isn't, but it is the best reason. Acting good towards others just because we are programmed to act that way doesn't mean much.

I'd just have to find somebody to convince you that Allah wants X and you'd do X no matter how terrible X was.

You would be more evil than him to lie about God to someone who trusts in God, not to mention that the person would have to be very ignorant to believe an atheists that God wants him to do X, and a person who is that devoted to God can not be as ignorant as that.

[Malaikah]

Sounds to me like faith. The ability to believe in something despite a lack of any evidence or reason to believe otherwise. Some people are able to do this more than others.

That is not true, Islam, the Quran in specific, challenges to mankind to think and to use their reasoning.

So many times you came across verses in the Quran along the lines of:

What is the matter with you, how do you judge?

Or: there are signs for people who think...

and the people of Hell will say:

And they will say: "Had we but listened or used our intelligence, we would not have been among the dwellers of the blazing Fire!"
[67:10]

The Quran also challenges mankind to produce another book like it- if it were based on pure faith why would there be any such need for the challenge?

You might not like to use the words the word 'proof' or 'evidence', but you can not deny that there are SIGNS.

[Pygoscelis]

.Though we all wish to do good, we differ as to what is good and what is not.

To a certain degree, yes. We certainly will differ on social taboos, like nudity, alcohol consumption, the F word, etc. But we're not likely to differ on fundamental principles of morality, like murder, theft, rape, etc.

The atheist thinks that way because of his environment and upbringing, and the Muslims thinks that way because he derives his morals from Islam, not from those around him.

You fail to aknowledge that Islam *is* typically his environment and upbringing. The two are no different. One just gets injected with religious social forces while the other gets secular social forces.

Punishment and reward do come in to it as well.

Certainly they do. BUt they are not the whole of it. Far from it.

You might consider giving charity to be doing a good deed just for the sake of it, because it is a good deed in and of itself, and personal gain has nothing to do with it, right? But that is not true, there is punishment/reward. The reward is that you are satisfying the natural inclination in yourself, knowing that you have done something good for someone who is needy.

This is the whole "there is no such thing as altruism" argument. What about when I do things because it is the right thing to do even though I don't particularly feel good or proud about it? This happens too.

I'm sure he did not mean that it is only one or the other. Give him the benefit of the doubt, he isn't the blood hungry monster you guys are making him out to be.

Go back and read the last page or so of this thread. I have been trying, very hard, to give him that benefit of the doubt, and he simply hasn't been taking it.

It is perfection of character to seek reward from God alone, and not from others. Meaning, you do not act only to be seen by others, or to satisfy yourself.

It is not perfection of character to seek reward at all.

You strive to be selfless to gain reward from God? That is contradictory. You aren't being selfless if you want a reward.

Acting good towards others just because we are programmed to act that way doesn't mean much.

Why do you speak of what it "means"? Good is done. Isn't that what truly matters? When you place your God ahead of what is Good (by which I mean socially constructive) that is when I start to worry about your potential actions and effect on any sector of society we may share.

You would be more evil than him to lie about God to someone who trusts in God

That is irrelevant to my point. His posts make him sound like a slave to God with no independent sense of morality. If this was so, then he would just have to be convinced by somebody that Allah wanted him to do X and he'd do it. No matter how horrible X was. And that is scary. That sounds to me like how terrorists may justify their actions.

not to mention that the person would have to be very ignorant to believe an atheists that God wants him to do X

Well yes sure. But what if it is an Imam saying it? What if it fits with scripture, given the right interpretation?

[Pygoscelis]

That is not true, Islam, the Quran in specific, challenges to mankind to think and to use their reasoning.

You've taken this out of context and run off on a tangent here. I was responding to steve's post.

You might not like to use the words the word 'proof' or 'evidence', but you can not deny that there are SIGNS.

We've covered this numerous times before. These "SIGNS" are impressive only to those who already believe and those who are easily impressed. Trumble had a thread going on this a while back. After dozens of pages of posts, it went nowhere.

[Abdul Fattah]

Thanks for your reply Pygoscelis

Sounds to me like faith. The ability to believe in something despite a lack of any evidence or reason to believe otherwise.

Yes in teh end believing always comes down to faith. But what I was trying to say is that;
where some people claim the following:
1. There is an unanswered question.
2. The question brings doubt to my belief
3. Therefor I am not capable to believe.

I often suspect the following:
1. I'm not willing to believe.
2. That unwillingness stops me from investigating religion enough to find answers.
(note, there are two different ways to investigate, you can investigate something with bias and determination to find flaws, or you can genuinly investigate and indulge the paradigm long enough to see it all adds up).
3. Therefor I am incapable of believing

But the disbelieving or failing to believe does give a guarantee, correct?

That depend, is the disbelieve out of ignorance? Out of incapability? Out of unwillingness? Those are three completely different things. Like I said, each action/decision is judged by its intentions.

We will have to agree to disagree on that. And to me it isn't each individual rule so much as the collected whole. There is a gstalt to it.

Ok fair enough.