/sci/ - Science & Math

Who the fuck programs in pascal in this day and age? Anyway it was fun messing around with it when i was a kid.

Never used it myself, but I hear it's a decent programming language

I'd take a shit on his wager.

What if I could potentially be rewarded for mass-murdering? Would it be better to not mass murder or to hedge my bets and go on a killing spree?

>>2749726

http://www.freepascal.org/

The government? They're always a few decades outdated.

>>2749730

Why would you be rewarded for mass-murder?

>>2749728

Pretty useless except as a teaching language.

>>2749743
The same reason I would get rewarded for actin virtuous as defined by the Bible.

Arbitrary rules are arbitrary. You can apply Pascal's Wager to any potential activity. What makes belief in reaching heaven by being Biblically virtuous any more valid than the belief in the FSM?

>>2749758

So you're saying that there could be an evil god that allows Hitler and Jeffery Dahmer into heaven and Mother Teresa into Hell? Ok, whatever.

>>2749773
Exactly. Why is this any more ludicrous than a God who lets people in as long as they aren't adulterers or as long as they only killed infidels?

>>2749773

He's saying it's as logically valid as the opposite happening. Unless you'd like to point out the contradiction in this suggestion then you have no reason to assume it's not possible.

I dunno; I think it's kind of silly to think that any god would have less morals than his creation.

>>2749795

How do you know we're moral? If what is moral is based on the arbitrary commandment of god, then it's just as much the case that jeffery dohmer was moral if an evil god commands that what he did was moral.

>>2749795

How do you figure?

>>2749809

>How do you know we're moral?

If we weren't, we wouldn't have laws in place to stop people from murdering, raping, and pillaging.

>>2749816
confirmed for troll

Pascal's wager is based on the idea that belief in God and living life as though you do believe in God (morally by christian standards) results in +infinity reward as opposed to a finite gain or loss in the other options. However, because Heaven may not be true, there could just as easily be a net loss (living morally when you really didn't want to) with no positive gain at all. So it's still a decision and Pascal did not, at all, give any sort of "foolproof" argument, he just explained things. Which is kind of useless and I'm glad people are more interested in the programming language.

>>2749809

>If what is moral is based on the arbitrary commandment of god,

Nope.jpg.

The topic/concept of high morality / virtue was a poignant topic amongst Greek philosophers and many agreed that there was an inherent dichotomy between what was considered Good and Bad. Aristotle outlines this in Nicomachean Ethics and Cicero's De Amicitia makes the implication that the man who is Good is of utmost character and is, of course, an unwavering friend above all else.

It was only until later that virtue became intermingled with God. Before Christianity as we know it came along, virtue was a topic discussed by men of yesteryear.

>>2749820

It seems rather illogical to think that any god would reward his creation for destructive behavior. No religion on earth teaches that.

>>2749820
Nicely said. But are you sure that there is a finite gain or loss and not also a infinite loss too? Assuming there is a deity, but whose «laws» weren't the ones you were following, wouldn't you suffer for eternity (assuming this deity has kind of a hell)?

>>2749850

Don't all the major religions have the same basic moral code?

>>2749841
god shut the fuck up

you're a terrible fucking troll

if you're not, you're just full retard.

>>2749840

I don't get what you're trying to refute, or if you're even trying.

>>2749872

I'm not trying to refute anything. I simply wanted to make that statement(s) because a lot of people seem to believe that the concept of morality started with religion and this is not so.

Dropping the trip since it really isn't necessary due to the topic of the conversation.

>>2749841

>inb4 ramblings about religious believers burning witches and shit

>>2749850
This actually got me thinking. But I think my original explanation can still apply. Even if there is a possibility of a negative infinite loss, it would be versus the gain of nonbelief (which IS a gain, because if it wasn't why wouldn't you believe in the first place, but that's a different argument.) and in the same way, you have to logically make a decision based on what we know about probability. Pascal kind of uses probability against itself, I guess because he fails to understand that not all of the outcomes have equal probability, and people tend to take chances if a negative outcome seems unlikely.

His argument of "moral gain" for belief in God even if he doesn't exist is arguable too. For "moral" gain there could be personal losses, etc. etc.

>>2749904

Didn't Jesus say something about how you should expect to be persecuted for your beliefs?

>>2749904
As with Descartes, his fundamental assumption was that the Christian God existed. His wager is so focused on that that he was incapable of seeing how absurd it was.

>>2749893

That's interesting, but I was simply presenting the euthyphro dillema "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

If you assume something is immoral or moral because it is commanded by god, then rape & murder have sufficient logical criteria to be moral.
Hence the possibility of jeffery dohmer being moral in a theistic framework.

>>2749923

Seems to me that whatever god exists, he/she/it would reward you for moral behavior (assuming moral behavior is the same across the board).

>>2749943
Going socratic on your ass

Why?

>>2749925

But that would assume morals are relative and not absolute.

>>2749963

...How?

so we come to a very similar conundrum to the God issue.

Is there any reason to think that morals are absolute? I would argue that there isn't, but there's no proof one way or another.

I don't think morals are absolute. "High morals" just derive from the existence of society, and the logical actions for people to take to further everyone's "gain" from that society without affecting others. For example, murder is obviously frowned upon within a society, however outside of a society it seems passable, mostly in cases of war, because it is not a negative effect to the society. I think the same can be said with most morals. Be nice to someone or they'll cry, and if they're upset they won't function as well in society, etc. etc.

And now secular morals have begun to show, a recent example being "help Japan." Why? It may not help OUR society directly, but really we're all humans, and are in fact one large society, and I think that's where morals of that nature derive from.

But I don't think they're "absolute", just based on logic which makes them similar across the board.

>>2749925

Old school Christian Philosophy is a bit complex in that regard. I know of what you speak, but you must be aware that, from a Christian view point, God and morality is very paradoxical.

God supports the Good for the sake of Good itself. This is a vigorous statement and completely abolishes God's sense of selfishness and illustrates his detachment from the flaws of humanity. For a being to support Good for the sake of Good itself is Aristotelian in nature(hint, hint) and was considered, above all, to be the most virtuous act ever. The paradox comes in when Religion goes on to state that God is also the source of ABSOLUTE goodness. This is where the whole omniscience of God comes in. God is, above all else, the most reasonable being in existence; hence, he is the most virtuous and is pouring of the Good. It is not morally good because it comes from him, but because he is the utmost essence of moral goodness.

The last sentence probably made you go 'wat,' but that's the best explanation I can give. If anyone's read Aquinas or Augustine, they can try to help me out/decipher what I'm attempting to convey.

>>2749963

I'm not this person, btw. However, notice how he utilizes the word 'absolute' in the same vain I did.

TBH, I'm just close-minded enough that I don't care about the crazy mind-fucks semi-logical Christians use to justify an unjustifiable belief system.

And they are some good mindfucks.

>>2749989
>>2749989

Morals aren't absolute, but Man is fully aware of what is righteous and what isn't. Speaking strictly from a reasonable perspective, we are aware of what is inherently evil and what is not. Evil, by the way, was a concept that was derived/formulated before God even came into the picture.

Aristotle and others believed that the Good was achieved through pure reason. Socrates was the only human being, they believed, who came close to actually achieving the true nirvana of virtue. This is primarily because his ability to reason was bar-none for his time and he always knew that he could learn more. Etc, etc.

In essence, here's how Greeks believed things:

Human mind -> Capable of reason(which is universal amongst all races, cultures, etc) -> Application of reason -> Achieve virtue.

Later on, Christianity(especially Aquinas) adopted these values and integrated them into Christianity. The Christianity you see now is muddled heavily; original Christianity was awe-inspiring simply because of the message it conveyed. Augustine and Aquinas were not only theologians, but sublime academic scholars of their day.

The Christianity today now is a joke. Old School Christianity was very spiritual in depth, and an intellectual experience.

>>2750011

Okay, believing that what makes morality moral is independent of god doesn't really counter point anything I've said.
Getting back to the main points I made before. It's still logically possible for someone to be reward for what we would consider bad and punished for what we consider good. This option invalidates pascal's wager since it undermines the belief that god's existence necessitate infinite reward.

Anyway I've got to go.

>>2750061

This is true. Like >>2749923 said, Pascal's wager relies on the existence of the Christian God (and even the "nonexistence" of God in his wager is speaking of the Christian God).

>>2750044
Was it not morally correct to murder millions of heathens for the monotheistic religions at one time? I would certainly consider this evil, but the people ultimately responsible for those deaths didn't.

It's inherently evil for me to perform female circumcision, but there are societies where it is not an evil thing to do.

Infanticide is something I find morally reprehensible, but there are societies where it is a necessary and accepted part of society, with no moral stigma.

I couldn't argue that humans have some divine ability to tell good from evil. We do what we do to survive. We are a product of our environment. cultural ecology.

>>2750111

Even in medieval times, there were some who argued that forcible conversion of heretics and infidels was wrong because it denied them free will (the ability to choose or reject salvation)

>>2750044

>Later on, Christianity(especially Aquinas) adopted these values and integrated them into Christianity. The Christianity you see now is muddled heavily; original Christianity was awe-inspiring simply because of the message it conveyed. Augustine and Aquinas were not only theologians, but sublime academic scholars of their day.

Absolutely. Western civilization was born out of a merger between Christianity and Greco-Roman culture.

>Christianity today now is a joke. Old School Christianity was very spiritual in depth, and an intellectual experience.

It is. Christianity as practiced by guys like Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson is very shallow and stupid, not to mention the fact that it feeds into atheist stereotypes about religion.

>>2750061

I'm just saying that the existence of an evil god seems quite illogical.

>>2750111

Even atheist and skeptical thinkers were much more intellectual than in past times. Today you just have "HURR DURR, GOD DOESN'T EXIST BECAUSE RICHARD DAWKINS TOLD ME SO AND LIKE INVISIBLE PINK ELEPHANTS AND STUFF!"

>>2750440
Suggesting that the opinions of idiots qualify as "modern thinkers" is disingenuous at best.

Great atheists like Heidegger, Sartre, Montesquieu, Hume and many others paved the way for religious freedom today, but if they looked at what atheism has become today, they would be majorly disappointed.
These philosophers believed in existansialism; that humans have a free will and it is what makes us who we are.
Science have however done a good job of objectyfying humans. Humans is an animal at the same level as all other animals, etc... (picture relevant).
This is the problem I have with atheism today; that they believe science is the one and only answer and the continuing de-humanization of humans. Questions like "How do something exist" or "who am I, asking all these questions" never seem to pop into your mind. You live in your own world, were you believe your understanding of the world to be the furthest humanity has ever been to reveal everything. You are not. You are dragging us down a path atheists warned us about more than a hundred years ago.

>>2750440
I've seen this argument thrown around a lot, but I've rarely if ever seen someone try to make such a stupid point, and I've seen a lot of stupid people making stupid theist points.

I think that you are mistaken in your characterization.

>>2750472
>These philosophers believed in existansialism; that humans have a free will and it is what makes us who we are.

Please see Dan Dennett talk about this here:
>Daniel Dennett lecture on "Free Will" (Edinburgh University)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKLAbWFCh1E

Also, if they don't like the truth, then they can fuck off.

>>2750493

It would seem illogical to be an atheist who doesn't believe in free will. You could only be fatalistic if you think there's a god who controls every breath you make.

>>2750511
Well, I hadn't heard a tolerable useful scientific definition of free will up until a couple days ago, until I saw that video. It's really good stuff.

>>2750472

>This is the problem I have with atheism today; that they believe science is the one and only answer and the continuing de-humanization of humans. Questions like "How do something exist" or "who am I, asking all these questions" never seem to pop into your mind.

Exactly. If you end up turning science into a religion, you end up with this sort of thing.

>>2750541

After WWII, there was one German writer (forget his name) who argued that the Holocaust ultimately came about because the people lost their Christian moral standards bit-by-bit following the unification of Germany in 1871. That worship of science and the nation state gradually superseded religion in addition to believing in the "God is dead" philosophy of Nietschze and others.

>>2750619
And that guy is obviously full of shit? What's your point?

In case you actually believe that, what is it, Sweden, which is largely atheist? I don't see them slaughtering people anytime soon. What happened in Germany is that people were on hard times, and a guy came to power on a platform of
- "family values"
- it's not your problem, someone else did it (the jews, etc.)
- strong nationalist sentiment

Sound familiar to a party in the US? Of course it does. Does that make that party nazis? No, but just saying.

>>2750619

There was once a guy that wrote a post about some German guy who wrote about something that is obviously bullshit. No one gave a fuck about his worthless contribution either.

>>2750632

And Sweden wouldn't help fight Hitler. Your point?

>>2750686
>And Sweden wouldn't help fight Hitler.
That's Switzerland you numbnuts. Sweden is right now aiding the coalition to bitchslap Gadaffi (sp).

>>2750698

Sweden didn't participate in WWII and you know it, even as their fellow Scandinavian countries were occupied by Germany.

>>2750632

Sounds more like Obama than anything else:

*Messianic figure who comes and offers hope and change from the old order
*Promises big health care and guaranteed employment for life
*Blames everything that goes wrong on someone else (ie. Republicans)

>>2750778
Only in your sad deluded head. Note that I never said Republicans, which means that you quickly saw the obvious connection, then decided to troll.

Ah, shit. I just realized that Godwin's Law has been invoked in this thread.

>>2750642

Using lame ad-hominem attacks proves that you can't refute something.