jgnfld wrote:I'm hardly the one to support it being a more of an atheistic frequentist myself as far as religion and probability go. But the criticisms--mockings--of Pascal's Wager typically rely, as you do, on saying Uguboogoo of the Jungle and the Christian God are completely different entities and that means the wager is false. There is a flaw in this criticism: Staynair, I think, would say the Infinite is singular no matter what part of the Infinite you are capable of understanding is named--Uguboogoo or God. Nimue/Merlin too as we KNOW that Nimue/Merlin truly believes in "God's plan for Safehold" as verified by the Verifier. That is why Staynair continues to rely on the Writ even though he knows it is false: It provides him with a starting basis for his understanding of the Infinite. The assumption that all the names of God are different entities is just that--an assumption--not a fact. And it, of course, can never be more than an assumption.
Additionally, Staynair's explicit position in one conversation is that living in line with his best understanding of the Infinite is the best way to live regardless of the reality of an afterlife or not. This obviates other criticisms of the Wager: Staynair is saying that to follow the dictates of the Infinite is the best way to live regardless of the existence of God as it maximizes cultural good. Of course this means he assumes the Infinite is a generally good influence.
As I said, personally I'm generally on your side. But the typical criticisms of Pascal's Wager are really ill-founded in terms of where David has explicitly taken this series. That is, I am trying to stay inside the Safehold universe as David is constructing it.
I would completely disagree.
First, in the Safehold universe the history of Earth is our history (plus future time). Safeholdians are currently unaware of that history but the premise of this discussion is what happens when that changes and they're filled in? So all other religions and Gods are in the mix at that point.
As for the argument that all Gods are vaguely "part of the same infinite"or however you want to refer to it, simply won't work as a defense of the Wager.
The whole point of the Wager is the imbalance in payoffs of belief vs. non belief if either is right or wrong. But you only get the payoff in, say, Christianity... if you do what is necessary for salvation according to Christianity. Jesus saves, not Ugaboogooo. So the wager requires belief in a specific concept of deity, not a general one. You don't just need to believe in "the Infinite". You need to believe that the only option for what the properties of this "Infinite" are is that it is some kind of entity which will only reward those who believe in it with some kind of spectacular afterlife and withhold it from (or actively punish) those who do not believe.
That is far more highly specific than you were talking about here. If you go with Staynair's position that whether there is an afterlife or not is irrelevant for example that renders the entire calculation the Wager is based on invalid. If there isn't an afterlife there's no difference in the consequences of believers or non believers being wrong.
The Wager cannot be defended. It's just a bad argument.
