> >>>>> On Thu, 7 May 1998, "LW" == Lloyd Wood wrote:
> LW> Only if you agree with Pascal's reasoning in his Wager. Pascal's
> LW> main problem there is that he does not attempt to consider the
> LW> existence of multiple religions; this requires some recalculation
> LW> of the probabilities, and comes out with an answer rather
> LW> different to the one he wanted.
> ...or perhaps he does (attempt to consider the existence of multiple
> religions), implicitly, by sweeping them under the rug called
implicitly? perhaps? When the word "disbelief" isn't even mentioned in
the Wager? In any case, the Wager is not about disbelief, but about
uncertainty. As I said, multiple religions are not considered; only
the certainty of one (christianity) is.
Do you buy lottery tickets? If not, why not?
Consider everlasting life a lottery where you have to buy the right
religion ticket to win. It's drawn on your deathbed.
Even though your choice of tickets is effectively infinite and the
available selection of precomputed tickets is quite large, you can
only buy the one ticket, and you must devote your belief to paying for
People who don't buy lottery tickets say they have better things to
spend their money on. Don't you have better things to do with your belief?
> LW> The problem is that any obviously sensible religions, where deeds
> LW> and intent count far more than faith does, have no marketing ploy
> LW> to gain new converts and Spread The Word Further. Hence, the
> LW> non-sensible religions (that is, all surviving organised ones)
> LW> get to have crusades and fervent jihads thanks to their separate
> LW> on- and off-reality accounting systems, and wipe out everything
> LW> else. Hmmph.
> Eh? Just because someone kills someone in the name of Christianity
> doesn't mean that Christ would approve of their actions.
^ your interpretation of.
Remember that the crusades and the jihads were sanctioned by the
relevant religious authorities, who one would hope were experts in
interpreting their own religions.