h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.h2g2.com/A341920

This entry was rejected last time round for veering too much towards opinion. I've tried to soften that up, and replace things previously stated as fact by statements made by that evil & satanic group known only as "some people".

Comments welcome...

Nice entry! Very well written. Clear and concise, and I don't find it biased at all.

JyZude

Giving it another shot, eh Dice?

This may sound strange coming from me, but I *can* actually see where this one is a bit biased, and could be construed as offensive. The header "I'm off to convert" could probably go, and same with the "look out..." header. You're quite clearly mocking the faithful. Not that they don't need mocking of course, but our mission here is to get this thing within Guide guidelines so they don't shoot it down again...

I think the intro needs to go, too. It makes it seem like you've put this together as a personal attack. Instead, you might try describing Pascal's Wager in his own terminology, and then break it down from there, explaining it in laymen's terms afterward, as you do in the second section, and then veering off to explain its applicability to the different sects. So basically, after the headers and the intro, it's pretty well balanced.

And on an unrelated note, I think it would be a good idea if you added a footnote explaining who Heaven's Gate was. It wasn't as closely followed outside America, and when I referred to it in my Atheism article, I was asked in the reviews what I was talking about. One quick description added in a footnote, and the dude said the equivalent of "Oh yeah, now I remember."

And on a personal note... My problem with Pascal's Wager has always been its black-and-white perception. The truth is that there are so many different gods, and so many different versions of the Judaeo-Christian variety, that your odds of worshipping the correct one are rather terrible. I prefer not to play the equivalent of the lottery with my next state of consciousness.

I think this still comes across as a tad too "tongue in cheek" and a little too biased to be taken seriously. While it's obvious that you made a good attempt to limit the opinion, you still provide the facts on only a limited number of the sides. Frankly, I don't think any discussion of Pascal's Wager is legit unless it also delves into 1) historical context, 2) other logic-based arguments for or against god, and 3) the role of "faith" in all of this (i.e., the fact that the average priest will tell you that belief based on "weighing the probabilities" is not the same thing as "belief based on faith" and therefore isn't worth all too much).

I also agree that this should either take a wider approach and include how Pascal's Wager figures in with global religions, or (alternatively) take a narrower approach and focus solely on one area (i.e., Judeo-Christianism).

Hope this helps some.

mikey

I disagree with Mikey. First of all, Pascal's Wager was designed with only one religion in mind, and is therefore applicable to only that one. While it might be interesting to investigate its application to other cults, it is not necessary to do so to discuss it. And the role of faith is completely irrelevant, as Pascal was not addressing faith in the slightest, but trying to justify belief on its own merit. Likewise, one article on Pascal's Wager has no need to delve into other fallacies used to justify a god. That would be like expecting an article on Wyoming to discuss the other 49 states. An article entitled "Pascal's Wager" should be expected to investigate that argument alone.

Historical stuff it could possibly use. One tidbit: the first documented use of Pascal's Wager was wayyy before Blaise Pascal's time. Emperor Constantine, throughout his life the head of the cult of Sol Invictus, agreed to be converted and baptized on his death bed, as a precaution that the Christians had been right all along.

Actually, I don't think that Colonel Sellers and I are *that* divergent in our opinions.

I don't necessarily think the article needs to delve into other religions -- I just think it needs to be an all or nothing thing -- either focus entirely on Christianity, excluding mention of all other religions, or be more "inclusive" throughout.

As for the whole idea of faith -- I don't think that the meaning of faith is necessarily important here, but that it is the most commonly proposed rebuttal to Pascal's Wager (i.e., that belief without faith doesn't count, so why bother), and one that may make the logic fallacious. In that sense, I do think it's relevant.

Well, the *existance* of other religions is one of the potential flaws - so they have to be at least mentioned.

I did have a bit on belief without faith, but I couldn't think of a good way to word it, so I scrapped it.

Ok, time for a bit of rejigging of headers and intro, and some historical research to refresh my memory - thanks for the help, all

oh, and the "look out..." header was just cause I was sick of those blasted shampoo adverts...
(you know the ones - Jenifer Aniston - "look out, here comes the science" - oh, no you don't - oh well)

ok - change complete. It's pretty different now.

It's longer, as a result - perhaps a little too long for what is, really, a small topic. The headers are now non-offensive (), and I've made use of those natty table things to make things clearer. I've dealt with Christianity throughout, bar the first section of the conclusion, and a mention in the "avoiding the wrong hell" objection.

Same request as before...

Pretty good I have to say...

I've had a lot of positive comments in conversations attached to this entry - though only one since the change in this thread... A couple of months has passed, and I still think that this entry is ready for the big time...

But I'm sure all you alert peer reviewers can tell me what's wrong with it, so go ahead - hit me with it. Can't change what I don't know about, and all that...

http://www.h2g2.com/A341920

I liked it before, and I like it still. I think you've brought new balance to the article, so it can't fail to be accepted.

I do have to minor nits to pick. The first is on Constantine again. The bit you added wasn't particularly illuminating. It assumes full knowledge of who, and when, Emperor Constantine was. It would probably help to add that Constantine was the one who established Christianity as the state religion through the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. I'm not sure when he died, but that date will give it historical perspective. It would also help if you mentioned when Pascal created the argument.

The second: did I notice some plagiarism in that Heaven's Gate footnote? Seriously, though, you overuse the pronoun "they" in the footnote, so it becomes difficult to discern when you are talking about cultists and when you are talking about aliens.

Plagiarism in the Constantine reference too... I was gonna just give you a researcher credit.

I've fixed the footnote, and I'll wander off and try and find some dates - or at least years...

Yo Lucinda, no surprises I'm sure, you know the drill- it's finally been accpepted as brilliant - or is it that the rest is all even worse

Thread to be moved, you'll be told etc.

Well done - One suggestion, if you could slip the link to The Prisoner's Dilema entry it may work.

CH

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not sure that there's really a connection between Pascal's Wager and Prisoner's Dilemma. As far as I can see, any resemblance is merely superficial. The point about Pascal's Wager is that it is a 'spiritual' choice, so to speak, the results of which will never be known for certain. Prisoner's Dilemma, on the other hand, deals with real-life interactions between people, the results of which will become known and will influence the subsequent actions of all participants. There are probably other differences too but I'm not thinking straight enough at the moment to be able to think of them...

Or have I completely missed the point here?

(Nice article, by the way, Lucinda. I was wondering when they'd get around to accepting it.)

OK maybe it is my way of thinking, but both entail the subject to take a selfish view of the world (in one extreme) and consider what is best for them. Maybe it's just a reflection on my current state of mind which is very much the "kill them all, let god sort them out" approach at the moment

CH

What's that, the Psychopath's Wager?

Sort of yes- New Year's Res - To be more selfish.

But seriously, The Prisoner's Dilema as you say has an effect on subsequent actions of the individuals.

Pascal's Wager if you bet on the side of a god has an influence on future actions in the after life.

If Pascal's wager is taken and you accept a god, you therefore accept a life longer than the corpeal (? spelling)

If the Prisoner's dilema is "solved" to your best advantage you live longer than if you make the wrong choice.

Maybe I am trying to hard, maybe I've had to much lemon Vodka. Whatever it's still a great entry, and so is the other on Prisoner's dilema.

Night all

CH

Lucinda, I like this entry a lot, especially the reference to Discordianism fnord !

I found 2 problems, which should be easy to fix. The first is a very minor point of grammar:

In the Conclusion:
"Christianity, however, is possibly the religion for which Pascal's Wager works strongest, ..." That should be "works most strongly" or "is most effective" or something.

Less minor:
"born again Christians in the USA make up a statistically larger proportion of those convicted for drug-related offences than the rest of the population - evidence that some, at least, are enjoying themselves in their newfound life."

Two issues here: is this true? reference? I don't care so much about that. As a mathematician, I'm more worried that you're not saying what you mean to say (or at least that you're ambiguous). You've claimed (in one possible reading) that more than half of all Drug-criminals (DCs) are bornagains (BAs)! I think what you wanted to claim is that a there's a larger proportion of BAs among DCs than in the rest of the population. Illustration:

General Population: 5% BAs, 95% just born once
Drug Criminals: 45% BAs, 55% normal

45 is significantly greater than 5, but still less than 50.

This is the same as claiming that there's a larger proportion of DCs among BAs than in the rest of the population. ("bornagains commit drug crimes in a larger proportion than do the population at large" or something) This second formulation might be more powerful, and is totally equivalent to the first. I think that's what you were saying, but you should find a clearer wording for it. It's hard to write precise statements of statistics in English! I'm not sure I've been very clear here...

But it /would/ be a shame to make a statistical error in an entry about probabilties!

Excellent entry though! Quick, fix it before it's in the Edited Guide!

I read it on a fairly reliable website - but I don't have a ref off the top of my head...

I'll make the fixes...