This might take care of the wager’s implications for what we should try to believe ourselves, but it would probably have weird implications of its own (for fanatical EAs, at least). It might suggest that critical thinking courses have a much higher expected utility than bed nets.
Ha, yes, I think other comments (e.g. Zach’s) are better getting at the deeper issues here. It’s hard to explain why, but it sure does seem crazy to allow the tiniest chances of infinite value to swamp all else.
Huh, that’s an interesting position that I wish I could agree with, but I just can’t see why beliefs billions of people have had for thousands of years would be less likely to be true than a God who does in fact exist but is totally different from what everyone thought and instead rewards… reason?
Do you think you could elaborate on why this Evidentialist God seems more likely to you?
In Amanda Askell’s site, linked in another comment by ColdButtonIssues, she gives a reason to think an evidentialist god could be more likely: ‘Divine hiddenness’ plus God making us capable of evidentialism. Roughly, the idea is to ask the question, “Why would a god want us to irrationally believe in it?”
It’s also plausible that people’s beliefs in a supernatural punishing/rewarding god can be explained by evolutionary/cultural factors that wouldn’t reliably track the truth.
I’m pretty sure that religion and an Evidentialist God often don’t contradict each other. This article has many examples from Christianity, though I’m certain there are many more examples in other religions:
“Yet most religious traditions allow and even encourage some kind of rational examination of their beliefs.”
Which also says “from the earliest of times, Christians held to a significant degree of compatibility between faith and reason.” and Aquinas had a rule that ″an interpretation of Scripture should be revised when it confronts properly scientific knowledge.’’
Obviously pieces of the Bible can be used to justify any viewpoint, but I think it’s at least worth mentioning this one verse that points directly against the Christian God being evidentialist:
John 20:29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen, and have believed.”
I see this as saying that doubting your faith by needing evidence is less noble that having full trust in your faith by not requiring evidence. In other words, true faith doesn’t need evidence.
I found this quote when someone pointed it out displayed at the front of a church, and regardless of its relevance to this conversation, I think it’s a fascinating verse, especially since it was considered important enough for this church to place in large writing at its entrance.
I think one takeaway is that given the stakes of the question- people should actually assess the arguments offered for each religion’s truth. It’s probably not correct to just assume a thought experiment (the Evidentialist God is as plausible as Gods for which there is (at least purported) evidence that many find convincing.
But if Evidentialist God is the most likely, we should dedicate ourselves to spreading Bayesian statistics or something like that.
I think it makes sense to spend a substantial amount of time researching religions. If you’re terminally ill, you should convert now.
Also, how you weigh suffering/joy probably matters. If Mormonism is true, it’s super-hard to go to Hell/become a son of perdition. So if you want to minimize odds of eternal punishment, joining the LDS Church may be less attractive. But they do have essentially tiers of heaven so if you’re more joy-motivated, research them!
Interesting. That passage could be interpeted very differently though like in favor of an evidentisalist God. (E.g. seeing is effortless while believing is harder and includes mulling over evidence).
I’m pretty sure that passage is in the context of doubting Thomas tho that dude was in a very different context. Instead of gods walking among us, we have many mutually exclusive religions vying for our attention. To have blind faith in one seems like a good way to end up in the wrong ideology.
As that article demonstrates, many experts in Christianity concluded reason is an essential guide to the correct ideology. And im sure they saw the passage ur refering to. So I’m inclined to belive them over some church you passed. Not to mention the strong evidentialist streak in other religions too.
The content of the beliefs matters to their credibility, far more than sheer numbers. I give ~zero weight to “what everyone thought”, if I don’t see any reason to expect their beliefs about the matter to be true. And the idea that an omnibenevolent God would punish people for being epistemically rational strikes me as outright incoherent, and so warrants ~zero credence.
Perhaps I should have said ”...than a Pascalian God who rewards belief regardless of whether the belief is epistemically justified.” (Obviously Pascal took this to be an accurate characterization of Christianity, but it doesn’t really matter for my purposes. If a world religion doesn’t match this description, then it won’t be supported by the reasoning of Pascal’s Wager.)
fwiw, I find an Evidentialist God (who rewards believing according to the evidence) far more credible than any of the existing world religions.
This might take care of the wager’s implications for what we should try to believe ourselves, but it would probably have weird implications of its own (for fanatical EAs, at least). It might suggest that critical thinking courses have a much higher expected utility than bed nets.
Ha, yes, I think other comments (e.g. Zach’s) are better getting at the deeper issues here. It’s hard to explain why, but it sure does seem crazy to allow the tiniest chances of infinite value to swamp all else.
Huh, that’s an interesting position that I wish I could agree with, but I just can’t see why beliefs billions of people have had for thousands of years would be less likely to be true than a God who does in fact exist but is totally different from what everyone thought and instead rewards… reason?
Do you think you could elaborate on why this Evidentialist God seems more likely to you?
In Amanda Askell’s site, linked in another comment by ColdButtonIssues, she gives a reason to think an evidentialist god could be more likely: ‘Divine hiddenness’ plus God making us capable of evidentialism. Roughly, the idea is to ask the question, “Why would a god want us to irrationally believe in it?”
It’s also plausible that people’s beliefs in a supernatural punishing/rewarding god can be explained by evolutionary/cultural factors that wouldn’t reliably track the truth.
I’m pretty sure that religion and an Evidentialist God often don’t contradict each other. This article has many examples from Christianity, though I’m certain there are many more examples in other religions:
“Yet most religious traditions allow and even encourage some kind of rational examination of their beliefs.”
https://www.iep.utm.edu/faith-re/
Which also says “from the earliest of times, Christians held to a significant degree of compatibility between faith and reason.” and Aquinas had a rule that ″an interpretation of Scripture should be revised when it confronts properly scientific knowledge.’’
Obviously pieces of the Bible can be used to justify any viewpoint, but I think it’s at least worth mentioning this one verse that points directly against the Christian God being evidentialist:
John 20:29
Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen, and have believed.”
I see this as saying that doubting your faith by needing evidence is less noble that having full trust in your faith by not requiring evidence. In other words, true faith doesn’t need evidence.
I found this quote when someone pointed it out displayed at the front of a church, and regardless of its relevance to this conversation, I think it’s a fascinating verse, especially since it was considered important enough for this church to place in large writing at its entrance.
I think one takeaway is that given the stakes of the question- people should actually assess the arguments offered for each religion’s truth. It’s probably not correct to just assume a thought experiment (the Evidentialist God is as plausible as Gods for which there is (at least purported) evidence that many find convincing.
But if Evidentialist God is the most likely, we should dedicate ourselves to spreading Bayesian statistics or something like that.
I think it makes sense to spend a substantial amount of time researching religions. If you’re terminally ill, you should convert now.
Also, how you weigh suffering/joy probably matters. If Mormonism is true, it’s super-hard to go to Hell/become a son of perdition. So if you want to minimize odds of eternal punishment, joining the LDS Church may be less attractive. But they do have essentially tiers of heaven so if you’re more joy-motivated, research them!
Interesting. That passage could be interpeted very differently though like in favor of an evidentisalist God. (E.g. seeing is effortless while believing is harder and includes mulling over evidence).
I’m pretty sure that passage is in the context of doubting Thomas tho that dude was in a very different context. Instead of gods walking among us, we have many mutually exclusive religions vying for our attention. To have blind faith in one seems like a good way to end up in the wrong ideology.
As that article demonstrates, many experts in Christianity concluded reason is an essential guide to the correct ideology. And im sure they saw the passage ur refering to. So I’m inclined to belive them over some church you passed. Not to mention the strong evidentialist streak in other religions too.
The content of the beliefs matters to their credibility, far more than sheer numbers. I give ~zero weight to “what everyone thought”, if I don’t see any reason to expect their beliefs about the matter to be true. And the idea that an omnibenevolent God would punish people for being epistemically rational strikes me as outright incoherent, and so warrants ~zero credence.
Why do u think that none of the existing world religions are compatible with what you called an Evidentialist God?
Perhaps I should have said ”...than a Pascalian God who rewards belief regardless of whether the belief is epistemically justified.” (Obviously Pascal took this to be an accurate characterization of Christianity, but it doesn’t really matter for my purposes. If a world religion doesn’t match this description, then it won’t be supported by the reasoning of Pascal’s Wager.)
That makes a lot more sense.