The debate "Pascal's Wager is still convincing even as a false dichotomy and appeal to emotion fallacy." was started by
July 9, 2019, 4:50 am.
8 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 13 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Allirix posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
JDAWG9693 posted 1 argument, mwest0097 posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
Allirix and 7 visitors agree.
mwest0097, JDAWG9693, mtbtheboss, kittrapper and 9 visitors disagree.
If I was to choose a religion it would be Christianity because I am culturally predisposed to it from living in a western country. That doesn't make it any more likely to be true than others though. I would select because it's the most beneficial one to choose in my community.
I believe Pascal's version of the wager was a false dichotomy because he framed it as Christianity vs atheism. But a dichotomy can be avoided by framing the wager as atheism vs any religion vs the religion you bet on. It's still a part of the wager to select a religion. Introducing other religions makes your bet less likely to pay-out than as a dichotomy, but the spirit of Pascal's Wager is still there where the pay-off of being correct as a religious person is higher than being right as an athiest.
Genuine question, do any who agree with the proposal feel fear that you are going to be reborn into a life of suffering in a third world country because the Hindus are right and you haven't been working toward enlightenment and increasing your good kamma? Or that you may even be reborn as a deva or demon because you deny the existence of Brahman and all the devas?
Convincing because of the emotion fallacy; very bad argument because of the emotion fallacy
I'd still see it as a convincing argument to select a religion, even at random if you're not culturally predisposed toward any in particular.
Is it a convincing argument when used for any religion other than the one you know best? If not, you will understand why it isn't convincing to those not already followers of any particular religion.
I'd argue the false dichotomy fallacy can easily be dismissed by tweaking the wager to include every religion. What if one of them is right? May as well take my chances and pick one, right? This doesn't remove the appeal to emotion fallacy, but that's the part that makes it a convincing argument with the lack of evidence
its convincing until someone says "ok, which god/rules should I follow?".
the thing about fallacious arguments is that they are all convincing, until someone points out the fallacy. this is true well beyond this wager.
Oh, that's my bad. I misunderstood it to be, like, "valid" instead of just convincing.
In that case, yes but only for two reasons. One: most people are conditioned only around one religion so the false dichotomy is less easily realized. And, two: most people are, in my humble opinion, idiots in regards to most things. Part of that being that appeals to emotions work too often.
So, yes, to many it is convincing, though it shouldn't be.
An argument can still be convincing even if it's invalid. By appealing to my emotions I find it difficult to completely dismiss the argument and understand when people give in to it. It's not a proof or evidence to help one's wise mind believe, but on one's deathbed the fear of the unknown might be enough to give in to Pascal's Wager and cause a conversion.
You just described why it's not a valid argument. If an argument is fallacious, it can no longer be used as is. Even if the conclusion is correct, that argument to achieve the conclusion was incorrect. The argument must be refined until it holds no fallacies or abandoned