Alt text: But to us there is but one God, plus or minus one. --1 Corinthians 8:6±2.
Author Archive for Samus
A question I think biblical scholars seriously need to address.
A question I think biblical scholars seriously need to address.
-Thomas Jefferson
Recently, on Atheist Revolution, the following argument against Pascal's Wager was made:
There is no reason why you couldn't turn the argument around and ask the Christian why he or she doesn't believe in [insert any particular god here]. If the wager is really about self-protection, the logical extension would be that one would need to simultaneously be an adherent of all religions.I've heard many arguments back and forth about Pascal's Wager, and these are two of the most common responses atheists make to it. Though I think Pascal's Wager is a terrible argument, I have to admit, these are two of the weakest responses to the argument.
Second, it does not take a genius to realize that belief does not work like Christians imply when they use the wager. Suppose for a second that I became genuinely concerned about the possibility of roasting in Christian hell. Even if I wanted to, it isn't as though I could simply flip a switch and start believing in the Christian god. The best I could do would be to feign belief. Perhaps that would be enough to appease the Christian, but it hardly saves my "soul."
For the first argument, consider this: Many religions are mutually exclusive, so being an adherent of all religions is out of the question. But, if it is true that you have infinite to gain from believing in at least some god, it may be rational (in the self-interested, not normative, sense of the term) to abandon atheism and take a bet on some god. The argument then becomes which sorts of gods are most likely, but atheism is excluded.
As for the second argument, while it is clear we can't "flip a switch" to change our beliefs, it is clear we have at least some control over our beliefs. We can put ourselves in situations which will challenge our beliefs, or which will be likely to foster certain beliefs. Perhaps, by actively trying to cultivate a religious belief, attending churches, steeping yourself in religious literature, avoiding conflicting points of view, etc. you could genuinely cause a belief in a deity. It doesn't need to be as easy as flicking a switch, but some control over beliefs some seem possible, and so it seems silly to place so much weight on the idea that on this particular issue, it may be impossible to create a belief.
It's not that I think the above arguments are completely without merit, just that they are not fatal, and there are much larger problems with Pascal's Wager. By ignoring the larger issues, too much is being granted to the wager.
The biggest problem? All of the bizarre implicit assumptions of the argument. Why assume all gods care that you believe in them? That seems like an odd trait for any god to have. Some conceivable gods have this property, but why think those gods are any more likely than the conceivable gods who like critical thinking and want us to come to the conclusion that there are no gods, or gods who are shy and hate for people to worship/believe in them? To me, it is bizarre to think a god exists who is so petty that it will punish or reward based entirely on whether you happen to believe in it, despite not giving evidence for itself. Slightly more believable is a deity who likes humans to use rationality, wherever it brings them. Hence the above Jefferson quote.
-Thomas Jefferson
Recently, on Atheist Revolution, the following argument against Pascal's Wager was made:
There is no reason why you couldn't turn the argument around and ask the Christian why he or she doesn't believe in [insert any particular god here]. If the wager is really about self-protection, the logical extension would be that one would need to simultaneously be an adherent of all religions.I've heard many arguments back and forth about Pascal's Wager, and these are two of the most common responses atheists make to it. Though I think Pascal's Wager is a terrible argument, I have to admit, these are two of the weakest responses to the argument.
Second, it does not take a genius to realize that belief does not work like Christians imply when they use the wager. Suppose for a second that I became genuinely concerned about the possibility of roasting in Christian hell. Even if I wanted to, it isn't as though I could simply flip a switch and start believing in the Christian god. The best I could do would be to feign belief. Perhaps that would be enough to appease the Christian, but it hardly saves my "soul."
For the first argument, consider this: Many religions are mutually exclusive, so being an adherent of all religions is out of the question. But, if it is true that you have infinite to gain from believing in at least some god, it may be rational (in the self-interested, not normative, sense of the term) to abandon atheism and take a bet on some god. The argument then becomes which sorts of gods are most likely, but atheism is excluded.
As for the second argument, while it is clear we can't "flip a switch" to change our beliefs, it is clear we have at least some control over our beliefs. We can put ourselves in situations which will challenge our beliefs, or which will be likely to foster certain beliefs. Perhaps, by actively trying to cultivate a religious belief, attending churches, steeping yourself in religious literature, avoiding conflicting points of view, etc. you could genuinely cause a belief in a deity. It doesn't need to be as easy as flicking a switch, but some control over beliefs some seem possible, and so it seems silly to place so much weight on the idea that on this particular issue, it may be impossible to create a belief.
It's not that I think the above arguments are completely without merit, just that they are not fatal, and there are much larger problems with Pascal's Wager. By ignoring the larger issues, too much is being granted to the wager.
The biggest problem? All of the bizarre implicit assumptions of the argument. Why assume all gods care that you believe in them? That seems like an odd trait for any god to have. Some conceivable gods have this property, but why think those gods are any more likely than the conceivable gods who like critical thinking and want us to come to the conclusion that there are no gods, or gods who are shy and hate for people to worship/believe in them? To me, it is bizarre to think a god exists who is so petty that it will punish or reward based entirely on whether you happen to believe in it, despite not giving evidence for itself. Slightly more believable is a deity who likes humans to use rationality, wherever it brings them. Hence the above Jefferson quote.
In the last couple of days, I have twice run across a misconception that just stuns me. People seem to be under the impression that vaccines are contributing to issues with antibiotic resistant diseases just like antibiotics are. This seems to be related to another misconception I've run into, where people seem to think all drugs do roughly the same thing (so pain killers and other medication that treats symptoms are lumped in with antibiotics).
This really betrays a fundamental misunderstanding. Vaccines are either a weakened or killed version of a harmful disease-causing microbe. By injecting you with this, your immune system learns how to fight microbes that look like that, and so are prepared the next time something like that comes along. The next time your body is infected with these microbes, your body will quickly dispatch them, and you either will feel no symptoms, or symptoms much weaker and for a much shorter duration than you otherwise would.
Antibiotics, on the other hand, directly kill bacteria. This is useful in many cases - in some instances, the bacterial infection will be deadly if antibiotics are not used to kill off or weaken the bacterial intruders. But this causes a problem - the more antibiotics we use, and the more common they are in our environment, the more bacteria are exposed to it. Since there will, occassionally, be mutants who are immune to a given antibiotic, using an antibiotic kills all of the competitors for this immune mutant, and so it will reproduce and the immune strain will become more common. So, the more we use antibiotics, the less effective they will become. This is evolution at work. This is a direct effect of antibiotics, there is no way vaccines could possibly contribute to this.
So please, keep this in mind. Vaccines are extremely useful preventative medicines, and there is already enough bad pseudoscience people hold against them without muddying the waters with thinking they contribute to antibiotic immune bacteria.
This really betrays a fundamental misunderstanding. Vaccines are either a weakened or killed version of a harmful disease-causing microbe. By injecting you with this, your immune system learns how to fight microbes that look like that, and so are prepared the next time something like that comes along. The next time your body is infected with these microbes, your body will quickly dispatch them, and you either will feel no symptoms, or symptoms much weaker and for a much shorter duration than you otherwise would.
Antibiotics, on the other hand, directly kill bacteria. This is useful in many cases - in some instances, the bacterial infection will be deadly if antibiotics are not used to kill off or weaken the bacterial intruders. But this causes a problem - the more antibiotics we use, and the more common they are in our environment, the more bacteria are exposed to it. Since there will, occassionally, be mutants who are immune to a given antibiotic, using an antibiotic kills all of the competitors for this immune mutant, and so it will reproduce and the immune strain will become more common. So, the more we use antibiotics, the less effective they will become. This is evolution at work. This is a direct effect of antibiotics, there is no way vaccines could possibly contribute to this.
So please, keep this in mind. Vaccines are extremely useful preventative medicines, and there is already enough bad pseudoscience people hold against them without muddying the waters with thinking they contribute to antibiotic immune bacteria.
In the last couple of days, I have twice run across a misconception that just stuns me. People seem to be under the impression that vaccines are contributing to issues with antibiotic resistant diseases just like antibiotics are. This seems to be related to another misconception I've run into, where people seem to think all drugs do roughly the same thing (so pain killers and other medication that treats symptoms are lumped in with antibiotics).
This really betrays a fundamental misunderstanding. Vaccines are either a weakened or killed version of a harmful disease-causing microbe. By injecting you with this, your immune system learns how to fight microbes that look like that, and so are prepared the next time something like that comes along. The next time your body is infected with these microbes, your body will quickly dispatch them, and you either will feel no symptoms, or symptoms much weaker and for a much shorter duration than you otherwise would.
Antibiotics, on the other hand, directly kill bacteria. This is useful in many cases - in some instances, the bacterial infection will be deadly if antibiotics are not used to kill off or weaken the bacterial intruders. But this causes a problem - the more antibiotics we use, and the more common they are in our environment, the more bacteria are exposed to it. Since there will, occassionally, be mutants who are immune to a given antibiotic, using an antibiotic kills all of the competitors for this immune mutant, and so it will reproduce and the immune strain will become more common. So, the more we use antibiotics, the less effective they will become. This is evolution at work. This is a direct effect of antibiotics, there is no way vaccines could possibly contribute to this.
So please, keep this in mind. Vaccines are extremely useful preventative medicines, and there is already enough bad pseudoscience people hold against them without muddying the waters with thinking they contribute to antibiotic immune bacteria.
This really betrays a fundamental misunderstanding. Vaccines are either a weakened or killed version of a harmful disease-causing microbe. By injecting you with this, your immune system learns how to fight microbes that look like that, and so are prepared the next time something like that comes along. The next time your body is infected with these microbes, your body will quickly dispatch them, and you either will feel no symptoms, or symptoms much weaker and for a much shorter duration than you otherwise would.
Antibiotics, on the other hand, directly kill bacteria. This is useful in many cases - in some instances, the bacterial infection will be deadly if antibiotics are not used to kill off or weaken the bacterial intruders. But this causes a problem - the more antibiotics we use, and the more common they are in our environment, the more bacteria are exposed to it. Since there will, occassionally, be mutants who are immune to a given antibiotic, using an antibiotic kills all of the competitors for this immune mutant, and so it will reproduce and the immune strain will become more common. So, the more we use antibiotics, the less effective they will become. This is evolution at work. This is a direct effect of antibiotics, there is no way vaccines could possibly contribute to this.
So please, keep this in mind. Vaccines are extremely useful preventative medicines, and there is already enough bad pseudoscience people hold against them without muddying the waters with thinking they contribute to antibiotic immune bacteria.
(click to enlarge)
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
