I swear, if you can make an ironclad rational argument for Mormonism
What do you mean by “ironclad”?
In my experience people who claim that they’ll change their position if presented with evidence passing a vaguely defined standard, will retroactively raise that standard so that whatever evidence is presented fails to pass.
My current opinion is that the doctrines of the Mormon church are wildly ridiculous, pernicious, and manifestly false. In other words, these are extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I don’t think calcsam can provide anything like the necessary degree of extraordinary evidence. I think it’s much more likely that I’d be struck by lightning while winning the lottery. This isn’t sporting of me, but then again, it’s not a sport. Calcsam is the one who chose LDS, not me.
I agree that my personal beliefs don’t amount to evidence, at least not to a rationalist. But the Mormons value converts. As a rationalist, I am convinced by evidence. I offer the prospect of my conversion as motivation for a Mormon to offer rational evidence for Mormon beliefs. And not just my conversion—if calcsam can win over LessWrong, calcsam can win the souls of the world to the True Faith. That’s motivation!
So, now we’ll see what evidence is forthcoming.
ETA:
And if some really convincing evidence is not forthcoming—as I suspect it will not be—then, in light of the aforementioned reasons to produce such evidence, I suggest it will be reasonable to assume that calcsam has no such evidence.
I suspect that calcsam is unusually intelligent and hardworking and probably is friendly and pleasant to meet in person. This describes a lot of modern Mormons, and as far as I know none of them have come up with anything like a decent demonstration of the truth of Mormonism.
Does your experience include LW rationalists deploying such a trick?
It’s true that people will dishonestly move goalposts, but at the same time, certain claims really do require proportionally more evidence—and the correct ones can produce that evidence (e.g. quantum “strangeness”, evolutionary theory, etc.).
Such a level of evidence can reasonably be characterized as “ironclad” or “unmistakeable”—and to borrow from EY’s felicitous phrasing, it would take a heck of a lot of evidence to unmistake Mormonism.
If calcsam convinces me that the Mormon god is ~10% probable and also the most probable god (i.e. Hindu gods are not 20% probable), I will publicly declare myself a Mormon. In addition, if there are no dramatic drawbacks to practicing Mormon practices, I will try to officially join the LDS.
Wait, so if (say) you thought it 90% likely that there were no God, and 10% likely that the Mormon God were real, then you’d be a Mormon? Is this Pascal’s wager, or am I misunderstanding?
And if your heavenly salvation depended on believing in the True Faith, you’d imperil your immortal soul if there were merely earthly “drawbacks” to Mormon practices? For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Not speaking for jsalviater, but it seems a more intelligent, more rational version of Pascal’s wager—one of the chief problems with Pascal’s wager is the assumption that other opposed Gods don’t exist. This flaw is removed in jsalvatier’s version.
So far, so good. Even so, if I were 90% convinced that there were no God, I don’t think it would be quite honest to describe myself as a believer.
But that’s not my main question. If I understand correctly, Pascal was assuming that the Christian God demanded faith, and (I think) orthodox Christian practices, and threatened unbelievers with Hell. The applicability of Pascal’s wager depends on the nature of the god in question. A relaxed, self-secure god who doesn’t really care whether you believe in Him or not changes the equation. Likewise, if there is no afterlife. On the other hand, if the deity places a really high premium on faith, then maybe merely 10% certainty isn’t enough to get you out of Hell. Similarly, the traditional Christian God (like the Jewish God) was supposed to be very demanding in terms of your adherence to the Church. If the pagans say you have to abandon Jesus or face the lions, then the lions it is for you. Being eaten by lions would seem like a “dramatic drawback” to a religion to me, but that was the doctrine.
Since the LDS church is the topic up for discussion, I should note that in their theology, God doesn’t so much punish as withhold rewards. Hell is reserved for those who literally knew God and refused to follow him, so unless you are a fallen prophet, you are going to heaven. There are three kingdoms in heaven, the lowest of which is said to be better than life on Earth.
It’s also relevant that there are opportunities to convert after you die, but prior to Judgment. If you find yourself at a 10% belief level, your best option might be to commit to joining postmortem if you find yourself in an afterlife.
This is a real problem in conversations where one or both parties are trying to win. In this conversation, I and presumably Costanza will be actually updating our beliefs as the evidence comes in. When enough evidence has come in to move my beliefs from where they are now to believing in Mormonism, I won’t want to move the goalposts, because I’ll be a Mormon and agree with Calcsam.
What do you mean by “ironclad”?
In my experience people who claim that they’ll change their position if presented with evidence passing a vaguely defined standard, will retroactively raise that standard so that whatever evidence is presented fails to pass.
My current opinion is that the doctrines of the Mormon church are wildly ridiculous, pernicious, and manifestly false. In other words, these are extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I don’t think calcsam can provide anything like the necessary degree of extraordinary evidence. I think it’s much more likely that I’d be struck by lightning while winning the lottery. This isn’t sporting of me, but then again, it’s not a sport. Calcsam is the one who chose LDS, not me.
My point is that your declaration and subsequent failure to convert is not itself in any way evidence against Mormonism or for Atheism.
I agree that my personal beliefs don’t amount to evidence, at least not to a rationalist. But the Mormons value converts. As a rationalist, I am convinced by evidence. I offer the prospect of my conversion as motivation for a Mormon to offer rational evidence for Mormon beliefs. And not just my conversion—if calcsam can win over LessWrong, calcsam can win the souls of the world to the True Faith. That’s motivation!
So, now we’ll see what evidence is forthcoming.
ETA:
And if some really convincing evidence is not forthcoming—as I suspect it will not be—then, in light of the aforementioned reasons to produce such evidence, I suggest it will be reasonable to assume that calcsam has no such evidence.
I suspect that calcsam is unusually intelligent and hardworking and probably is friendly and pleasant to meet in person. This describes a lot of modern Mormons, and as far as I know none of them have come up with anything like a decent demonstration of the truth of Mormonism.
Well, they are very weak evidence.
Does your experience include LW rationalists deploying such a trick?
It’s true that people will dishonestly move goalposts, but at the same time, certain claims really do require proportionally more evidence—and the correct ones can produce that evidence (e.g. quantum “strangeness”, evolutionary theory, etc.).
Such a level of evidence can reasonably be characterized as “ironclad” or “unmistakeable”—and to borrow from EY’s felicitous phrasing, it would take a heck of a lot of evidence to unmistake Mormonism.
If calcsam convinces me that the Mormon god is ~10% probable and also the most probable god (i.e. Hindu gods are not 20% probable), I will publicly declare myself a Mormon. In addition, if there are no dramatic drawbacks to practicing Mormon practices, I will try to officially join the LDS.
Wait, so if (say) you thought it 90% likely that there were no God, and 10% likely that the Mormon God were real, then you’d be a Mormon? Is this Pascal’s wager, or am I misunderstanding?
And if your heavenly salvation depended on believing in the True Faith, you’d imperil your immortal soul if there were merely earthly “drawbacks” to Mormon practices? For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Not speaking for jsalviater, but it seems a more intelligent, more rational version of Pascal’s wager—one of the chief problems with Pascal’s wager is the assumption that other opposed Gods don’t exist. This flaw is removed in jsalvatier’s version.
So far, so good. Even so, if I were 90% convinced that there were no God, I don’t think it would be quite honest to describe myself as a believer.
But that’s not my main question. If I understand correctly, Pascal was assuming that the Christian God demanded faith, and (I think) orthodox Christian practices, and threatened unbelievers with Hell. The applicability of Pascal’s wager depends on the nature of the god in question. A relaxed, self-secure god who doesn’t really care whether you believe in Him or not changes the equation. Likewise, if there is no afterlife. On the other hand, if the deity places a really high premium on faith, then maybe merely 10% certainty isn’t enough to get you out of Hell. Similarly, the traditional Christian God (like the Jewish God) was supposed to be very demanding in terms of your adherence to the Church. If the pagans say you have to abandon Jesus or face the lions, then the lions it is for you. Being eaten by lions would seem like a “dramatic drawback” to a religion to me, but that was the doctrine.
Since the LDS church is the topic up for discussion, I should note that in their theology, God doesn’t so much punish as withhold rewards. Hell is reserved for those who literally knew God and refused to follow him, so unless you are a fallen prophet, you are going to heaven. There are three kingdoms in heaven, the lowest of which is said to be better than life on Earth.
It’s also relevant that there are opportunities to convert after you die, but prior to Judgment. If you find yourself at a 10% belief level, your best option might be to commit to joining postmortem if you find yourself in an afterlife.
The Pascal’s Wager Fallacy Fallacy?
This is a real problem in conversations where one or both parties are trying to win. In this conversation, I and presumably Costanza will be actually updating our beliefs as the evidence comes in. When enough evidence has come in to move my beliefs from where they are now to believing in Mormonism, I won’t want to move the goalposts, because I’ll be a Mormon and agree with Calcsam.