Taking Pascal's wager to the horse races

Came across this unique response to Pascal's Wager in a thread at Pharyngula, authored by BrentH.

______________________
I first encountered the "What if you're wrong?/Pascal's wager" nugget while an undergraduate at the University of Kentucky when confronted by a recruiter from Campus Crusade for Christ. Having misspent much of my youth skipping from Catholic high school to go to Keeneland and Churchill Downs, I gave my opinion of Pascal's wager to him from a handicappers perspective.

It's as if every world religion has a horse (i.e. god) in a race. Each religion is a first time owner and has never raced a horse before, but that's OK because each owner is guided by advice and strategy from his omniscient talking horse. There are no independently verified and published past prefomances of the horses in an equivalent of the Daily Racing Form - just self published hype in esoteric scriptures. The race is a very long and the winner takes all. The losers and their backers are tormented and tortured for all eternity after the race. The wagers can only be Win bets, there is no Place, Show or exotic (e.g perfecta, trifexta, quinella, etc.) wagering. The bets aren't placed with the track in a pari mutuel pool, they are placed with the owners of the horses. And the wagers aren't just one time bets. Each owner specifies how much the wager costs and requires you to continually add to your bet through tithing, demands on your time and prayers to the horse for the rest of your life. Some owners even control the diets of their bettors. All of the owners promise tremendous payoffs and they brag about previous bettors who have won big, but they can't verify this.

The most hyped horse in this race is the one (actually some say it has the power of three horses) owned by the Christians, which is a quarrelsome consortium of owners that can't agree on the jockey or the strategy of the race. These contentious owners can't even agree on the price of the bet or the payoff. There is a young horse owned by the Muslims, who are very demanding and cruel to their backers. They are specially intolerant of any criticism of their jockey, Mohammed. Another young horse is owned by the Mormons, who say their horse is a clone of the horse owned by the Christians. They also say if I win, I can become a horse in a future race. There is an old horse in the race owned by another consortium known as the Jews. To complicate the handicapping, this horse sired the colts owned by the Christians and the Muslims and possibly the one owned by the Mormons. Some owners such as the Hindus, Vikings, Ancient Greeks and Ancient Romans have many horses in the race, but these owners (except the Hindus) have few bettors. There is a whole field of other horses owned by eclectic groups such as the Scientologists, Zoroastrians, Bahais, Sikhs, Rastafarians, etc. All these owners have extremely strange betting schemes and also very few backers. There are a few fillies in the race , but they have all scratched except the one owned by the Wiccans. There is even a horse owned by the Buddhists, but they admit upon further questioning they really don't have horse in the race at all and if I win, I can bet again after being reincarnated.

Oh! and I forgot the most important part, most owners say they will not pay (but rather punish for all eternity) any backer who strays from the demanding betting scheme or who are disingenuous and only feigning his/her support.

There is no way I would ever place a bet in this race. Even if an amateurish handicapper who fails to see that there is no race and the horses are imaginary, would see this wagering sytem is unregulated and corrupt. All owners just keep the obscenely large purses extorted from thier bettors.

Pascal's wager is a childish analogy and fundamantalists that use it as a recruiting tool are fools. Do they not realize it distills their belief and god down to a poorly analyzed probability?

Religion as LARP

Nice essay by Steve Zara: Creationists are honest.

Dr. Zara informs us that we are doomed to disappoint when we try to convince creationists that the theory of evolution and some variant of creationism are compatible notions.

It's true. God isn't required for natural selection and the emergence of humans as a distinct species. And by implication, God probably isn't necessary to explain other events in the history of the universe, such as the origin of self-replicating molecules from non-living matter or the Big Bang at the start of it all.

Maybe there is a God who fiddles with our material world somehow. Who knows? I dunno. But I do note that the physicists, chemists, biologists, and mathematicians to date have not required God in their explanations of how stuff works.

Creationists assert that humans require God. God is not optional. From the creationist viewpoint, any model of the history of the universe that makes no reference to God is not just wrong. It's willfully wrong and offensive, as all lies are offensive.

But what of the liberal believer who is content to read Genesis as metaphor? The believer who respects science but who also finds the notion of a loving Creator-God comforting? Can't the theory of evolution get along well enough with such mild religious claims?

Well, typically, the religious propositions asserted by liberal believers are incoherent. What they say they believe and how they live and what they accept as evidence in a court of law and what they understand about the actual world we share don't add up. The mess of personal belief is self-compatible only insofar as it's shielded from scrutiny.

Ever wondered why some liberal religionists called you cold when you threw a bit of logical argument their way? It's the wool in their heads. Apparently it does more than merely dampen cognitive dissonance. It also helps to keep them feeling cozy-warm. Consequently they are not keen to give it up, you heartless godless bastards.

Maybe one day everyone will recognize that God is not required to explain much of anything. Per the parsimony rule, any entity not required is a non-entity, and so there will be no God. No real God, anyway. The LARP or "live action roll play" God(s) humans have enjoyed for centuries can carry on as before. All that will change is our mindfulness of the boundary between LARP and IRL action.

Science vs. Faith

Found this at Two Blue Crabs, a site that is impossible to navigate and NSFW. Maybe 1/20 pics are amusing. More are unpleasant. You have been warned.

Ted Haggard: Back from the Wilderness

Ted Haggard's gone through some tough times over the past couple of years. But he didn't pass through the wilderness alone. He had a camera crew! The Trials of Ted Haggard airs on HBO 1-29-09.

Of Mike Jones, his accuser, Haggard said: "I know he's gone through a lot. When he said he had to say something, I believe it. And I think that was God encouraging him to do that."

Jones said Friday he considers Haggard a salesman seeking attention for his business.

Ya think?

Newsweek reviews some of the major scandals involving religious leaders over the past several years:

1. Jim Bakker - In 1987 he had a "one night stand" with an employee. In 1989 he was convicted of fraud and conspiracy for bilking PTL of $158 million. Cheese 'n crackers -- one hundred fifty eight million!

2. Richard Roberts - Son of Oral Roberts. In 2007 he was sued for "lavish personal spending" at doner's expense and illegal local political campaign involvement.

3. Jimmy Swaggart - Caught with a prostitute 1988. On TV said, "I have sinned against you and beg your forgiveness." Caught with another prostitute three years later. Told his congregation, "the Lord told me it's flat none of your business."

4. Robert Tilton - In 1991, found taking doner's checks but throwing away prayer requests without reading them. Resumed TV ministry 1997.

5. Henry Lyons- Former president of the National Baptist Convention. Convicted of racketeering and grand theft in 1999.

6. Rabbi Fred Neulander - Convicted of arranging to have his wife killed in 2000.

7. Jesse Jackson - In 2001, admitted extramarital affair resulting in the birth of a daughter.

8. Father John Geoghan - Molested more than 100 boys during his 30 year career. Killed by a fellow inmate in 2003.

9. Bishop Kurt Krenn - Resigned in 2004 after seminary porn scandal in Austria. Authorities found 40,000 lurid images including child porn.

10. Father Marcial Degollado - Mexican founder of the conservative order Legionaries of Christ. Sexually abused seminarians. Died 2008.

11. Greek Orthodox sex scandal 2005 - Senior Orthodox clerics involved in relationships with other men.

12. Ted Haggard - Former head of the National Association of Evangelicals. Vocal opponent of same-sex marriage. Had sex with a male prostitute who also sold him methamphetamine. Resigned 2006.
____________________
You'd think these scandals would shake the popular notion that morality and belief in God are linked. But several ready-made rationalizations keep the delusion going - e.g., humans have free will, Christians struggle with temptation like everyone else, etc.

Gullibility is, apparently, no sin.

IMMA CHARGIN MAH WAFERS!!!

Some of these hosts have been consecrated; some not. Can you tell which? Carl from Atlantic City can.

I'm not sure how else a person could distinguish them-- the Church certainly doesn't claim a chemical distinction. I think anyone expecting that the host is going to turn green and be emblazened with 'Christ was here' is a nut. But my experience of the Eucharist-- of that spiritual distinction-- has been profound and life-altering.

There are more cracker threads at Pharyngula than I can count, each with bajillion posts. You will not believe your eyes.

Added: The crackers need a few friggin' lazers on their heads. Then they could say convincingly, "U THREATEN CRACKERS?!! OMG U IZ SO DED!!1!" But that's beyond my time and/or shoopin' skills.

Prank 3:16

Spiritual Safety Tip

Fan fiction sub-genre: theology

Steve Zara has been thinking about the Emperor's New Clothes.

It is a very subtle tale, indicating how deferring to authority can lead to lies and hypocrisy, along with a sense that that behaviour is somehow appropriate. It is also about cowardice - no-one daring to point out the obvious; it takes the naivety of a child in the story.

He's right. However he initially minimized a related theme which he later came to appreciate: First things first. We have to establish that a thing exists before we can study it.

Well, unless we write fan fic.

Fan fiction is an exploration of the play space available within an imagined world established by some prior literary work. It's not easy and it would be unfair to say that a fan fiction writer just makes stuff up.*

Several months of study may be required to master the constraints of some literary universe. Characters can't simply do as you please. They have strengths, weaknesses, alliances, enmities, and motivations. Any potential plot line is constrained by setting, materials, and the laws of physics. If magic is introduced, its uses and limits must be explained to the reader.

Imagine all the research necessary to write a good Star Trek episode. Without careful scholarship, distracting discontinuities and contradictions with what has gone before are bound to appear.

Theologians get annoyed when atheists accuse them of studying a non-subject. Anything that takes work isn't "nothing" ...

...is it?

____
*Example of the upset that can be provoked when one fails to appreciate all the hard work and discipline of good fan fic. The first response is civil:

Steve Zara's last comment, in which he says that "religion just makes stuff up" is so ridiculously silly one could almost imagine that he really doesn't believe it. Has he read any of the 111 comments so far, and by reading I mean thoughtfully considered each word and phrase, pondered what is being said, how it is being said, etc.? It would seem not.

Creationist logic

What do men want?

Thinking about girl power reminded me of something recently posted on RichardDawkins.net by Christopher Davis:

Tomorrow I will roll out in a convoy of up-armored HUMVEES heading to a small town in Afghanistan to witness the opening of a school constructed by the Afghan government along with the help of coalition forces. En route, we will see dozens of small children and they will run to the edge of the road and smile and wave. We will wave back and our gunners will toss out small bags containing candy, shoes, pencils, pens, toothbrushes etc. Many of these children will be girls...these little girls break my heart and remind me why I am an atheist.

You see, the school we are opening is for boys only. The Pashtun culture places very little value on women, much less the education of women. So when I see these little girls laughing and smiling, it saddens me because I know I am seeing them at possibly the happiest time in their life. I know that in ten or twelve years they will be someone's property.

They will be wed to some man who will treat them only slightly better than he does his livestock and feel no remorse in doing so. A man who has been taught since he was a little boy that such is the way of the world and such is a woman's place in it...and he has been taught this as part of his religion.

Now I know some wise-ass is going to read this and say "That's not what Islam teaches! Those behaviours are derived from tribal customs, not from the Koran!" I concede that may be true. But for those little girls who will wave at my convoy tomorrow, that bleak future is most likely the only Islam they will ever know.

I Will Survive

Ding Dong!

One Day I'll Be Pope!

Oh Noes! Judge Sai STFU to teh Gheys!

People are upset over at INSIDE HIGHER ED. A federal court ruled that a Georgia Institute of Technology GLBT student support group, the Safe Spot, was handing out unconstitutional literature. The materials in question described certain religious groups as more gay friendly than others and expressed a bit of disdain for fundamentalism.

Federal District Judge J. Owen Forrester concluded that these materials violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Some bloggers are troubled by the ruling. Inside Higher Ed views the matter as "Gay Rights vs. Religious Rights." PZ Myers wonders whether church-state separation causes more harm than good:

"...because we have to mindlessly avoid any perception of preference for one over another at any official level, the more enlightened faiths must be lumped with the dumbest, vilest, crudest kinds of religions, and you are not allowed to distinguish between them. I've said it before: church-state separation is a principle that protects and privileges religious belief in the United States, and furthermore as we can see here, it isolates pathological, dangerous beliefs from valid criticism."

In my opinion, the judge did the right thing. Two factors created the establishment clause challenge:

1. The dean had editorial power over the literature in question, creating state entanglement with its content.

2. The literature used a theological justification for the notion that homosexuality is not immoral.

It's not okay for the government to do stuff like that. We don't need the state telling us how to correctly interpret the Bible or when some verse has been "taken out of context." Read the judge's ruling and you'll appreciate how far the Safe Spot literature strayed over into Bible opinion land. Here's a taste:

Is homosexuality immoral?

Many religious traditions have taught, and some continue to teach, that homosexuality is immoral. These condemnations are based primarily on a few isolated passages from the Bible. Historically, Biblical passages taken out of context have been used to justify such things as slavery, the inferior status of women, and the persecution of religious minorities. In recent years, many theologians and clergy have begun to look at sexual relationships in terms of the love, mutual support, commitment, and the responsibility of the partners rather than the sex of the individuals involved. Currently, there are many gay and lesbian religious groups and religious congregations that are open, accepting, and supportive of the gay community.

The Safe Spot Training Manual, created to guide staff in their efforts to support gay and lesbian students, has a section entitled, "What does the Bible Say about Homosexuality?" Judge Forrester quotes some of the questions and answers listed:

Q. Some TV Evangelists act as if homosexuality among men were the worst sin. What Biblical texts do they base this on? Is their approach legitimate?

A. The supposedly sweeping Biblical condemnation of homosexuality rests almost exclusively on only eight (brief) passages in the Bible...

Q. When homophobic people start using the Bible to attack me, how can I verbally defend myself? Are there any passages in the Bible that seem to support gay relationships, or at least indicate that perhaps marrying and having children is not the ultimate Christian duty?

A. There seems to be little point in arguing with people who still believe the earth was created in 4,004 B.C.; this doesn’t mean that you have to accept their interpretation of the Bible. Remember: these people are not homophobic because of the Bible; they hurl these passages at gays and lesbians because they were homophobic to begin with. (You might chide them for wearing mixed fabric or ask them if Jim Bakker must be 'put to death' – if you really enjoy arguing). You might familiarize yourself with the many Biblical passages (Too numerous to mention here) that stress love, compassion, forgiveness of sins, not judging others, etc. Remember: Jesus himself never married nor had children! Other parts of the Bible simply can’t be forced into the 'family values' obsession of the Fundamentalists.

I'm surprised the matter went to court. The dean should have recognized the problems in the handouts and requested that they be revised. A simple list of gay friendly churches in the area would have sufficed. No theology necessary.

So please everybody, be happy!

State schools can continue to create free speech forums for both faculty and students. Administrators simply need to avoid:

1. Asserting editorial influence or control over the speech expressed in those forums;

2. Offering theological opinions.