Decision Theory

[Zosimus]

Prescriptive decision theory holds that we should make the decision that has the best chance of getting us the best result. For example, if you are considering whether to play the lottery we should realize that the amount to enter vs. the chances of winning vs. the payoff makes that a bad idea/bet.

Applying this logic to Christianity, it seems that Christianity is a bad bet because:

A) The chances that Christianity is true are low.
B) The payoff if Christianity is right is insufficient.
C) The things you have to do to qualify for heaven are difficult.

Of course, this assumes that you're not just a mouth confession Christian. Some Christians believe that simply saying, "I invite Jesus into my heart" gets you salvation regardless what you do later in life. In that case, the logical decision seems to be to make a simple mouth confession of Jesus and then focus on another religion to get in essence a double shot at the prize.

How would you, as a Christian convince someone that:

A) Christianity is more probably true,
B) That the Christian afterlife is superior to other afterlives, or
C) That becoming Christian is a relatively easy/painless thing?

 

[Hammster]

I'm not called to convince anyone that Christianity is true. I'm called to proclaim the gospel. Conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

B) The payoff if Christianity is right is insufficient.

I would disagree. For argument sake, assuming that Christianity is right, the payoff would be eternal reward if you believe. If you don't believe you will be condemned to eternal torment. However if Christianity is wrong, you fade into nothingness. I think this is unfortunately one of the most powerful incentives for people to follow a religion, especially Christianity. I have heard the Richard Dawkins response to the "what if you are wrong?" question. I know most people here are not bothered by it and may view it as using fear to control people. But this is what many theist think about. "Yeah there is a lot of evidence to support atheism....but what if they are wrong? Am I willing to take that risk?" So many choose to play it safe. Heck...if a christian is wrong, they fade into nothing, if an atheist is wrong they spend an eternity in torment.

C) The things you have to do to qualify for heaven are difficult.

According to Christianity it is not hard at all. All you have to do is confess that Jesus is your Lord and savior, repent your sins, and believe in him. However, you are not entirely wrong. Because I do believe that belief is not a choice. For many atheists, to choose to believe that a god exists is as difficult as choosing to believe that the computer they are using at this very moment to read this post does not exist.

 

[com7fy8]

A) The chances that Christianity is true are low.

I would say there is no chance to it; either it really is true or it isn't. And if the Bible is true, I offer it includes saying how God Himself will personally prove Himself to you, so that you are not guessing. I experience Him doing this with me, except I am not perfect in my ability to appreciate; so I am the problem, not God or the Bible

B) The payoff if Christianity is right is insufficient.

Well, if someone reads the Bible, they can see that Christianity is way more and better than what humans can wish to be sufficient. For one example > we can in Jesus be each personally ruled by our Father's own peace in our hearts >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

In the ruling of His peace, for one example of benefits, we have His own almighty power of protection against cruel and dictatorial and tyrannical things like worry and boredom and loneliness and bitterness and self-degrading anger and other nasty stuff. If this, for just one thing, is not a good enough benefit for you . . . what does this mean about you?

C) The things you have to do to qualify for heaven are difficult.

Jesus says "impossible", not only "hard" or "difficult" > "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God," He says in Luke 18:27. And I offer that the "chances" of Jesus knowing this are not much unless Jesus is God and/or knows this from His own experience. I mean - - who would even think of a thing like this, if we all were only physical in existence and determined by physical DNA?? "Why" would a DNA mutation process, including "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection", produce someone like Jesus or even just the imagination of Him??

B) That the Christian afterlife is superior to other afterlives, or

We reap what we sow. Our little seed deeds will grow into a harvest. Already, we are sampling this > we can see how now we are reaping emotionally according to how we have been sowing. For only one sample example of this > people have sown to themselves that rain is bad or dismal weather; so now such people are reaping all that time of feeling lousy whilever it is raining! But we could be appreciating how our Father is supplying us with His rain which is so needed for life on this planet. And we could be enjoying His raindrops as sweet kisses on our faces and relishing the sweet scent of rain . . . thanking God who "gives us richly all things to enjoy" (in 1 Timothy 6:17) < I would say this is more beneficial, among other things . . . to be able to enjoy what is free, in sharing with God in His love.

So, if people sow to themselves wrong ideas and attitudes, then they can now emotionally reap trouble and misery from that - - as a warning sample of how they could become eternally moreso after they are no longer in their present physical bodies.

"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life." (Galatians 6:7-8)

But ones in an evil spirit can turn a good thing into what they experience to be bad, like how Adam and Eve did after giving in to the disobedient spirit (Ephesians 2:2) witch had them afraid of God and feeling ashamed about God's good creation. Why, by the way, would DNA mutations produce just-physical beings feeling bad about something like rain which is so needed for our survival . . . for only one example?

C) That becoming Christian is a relatively easy/painless thing?

nonsense . . . silly . . . Jesus says we will suffer for His name. Also, Hebrews 12:4-11 talks about how we need to seek our Father for His personal correction in every one of us who are His children; and there is pain in real correction >

"For whom the LORD loves He chastens,
.And scourges every son whom He receives."
. . . . . . . . . . . . . (Hebrews 12:6)

"Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." (Hebrews 12:11)

But I think this mainly means the pain of our ego suffering about correction > as the ego goes, so does the pain . . . about things about rain or correction.

 

[Zosimus]

Perhaps I was unclear. Let's use a simpler example. Let's imagine that there are only 5 religions in the world and let's further imagine that we know for certain that one of them must be right. The religions are:

Islam
Judaism
Christianity
Mormonism
J Witnesses

Since we do not know which one is true, we assign an initial 20% chance to each of them. Now let's analyze cost/benefit.

* Islam: 72 virgins in the afterlife. You have to either blow yourself up or travel to Mecca and pray 5-6 times a day.
* Judaism: Bosom of Abraham. You have to be circumcised, avoid pork, be generous, read Torah, etc.
* Christianity: Mansion in Father's House. You have to repent, be baptised, read the Bible, preach, etc.
* Mormonism: You become God. You can have all the wives you want in the next life. You spend all of eternity having kids and taking care of them. You have to pay tithing, go to the temple, wear weird underwear, and learn some handshakes.
* J. Witnesses: Live forever in paradise on Earth. You have to stand on street corners handing out Watchtower magazines. You probably have to do other things that I don't know about. Anyway, it doesn't matter because if you're a good person you get brought back in the millennium and you get a second shot at salvation.

I mean the simple back-of-the-envelope calculation indicates that being Mormon is the way to go. If you're right, you become God. What's better than that?

Obviously the real situation is more complicated than that. You have a lot more than 5 religions and there is no guarantee that any of them is right.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I would say there is no chance to it; either it really is true or it isn't. And if the Bible is true, I offer it includes saying how God Himself will personally prove Himself to you, so that you are not guessing. I experience Him doing this with me, except I am not perfect in my ability to appreciate; so I am the problem, not God or the Bible

Well, if someone reads the Bible, they can see that Christianity is way more and better than what humans can wish to be sufficient. For one example > we can in Jesus be each personally ruled by our Father's own peace in our hearts >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

In the ruling of His peace, for one example of benefits, we have His own almighty power of protection against cruel and dictatorial and tyrannical things like worry and boredom and loneliness and bitterness and self-degrading anger and other nasty stuff. If this, for just one thing, is not a good enough benefit for you . . . what does this mean about you?

Jesus says "impossible", not only "hard" or "difficult" > "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God," He says in Luke 18:27. And I offer that the "chances" of Jesus knowing this are not much unless Jesus is God and/or knows this from His own experience. I mean - - who would even think of a thing like this, if we all were only physical in existence and determined by physical DNA?? "Why" would a DNA mutation process, including "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection", produce someone like Jesus or even just the imagination of Him??

We reap what we sow. Our little seed deeds will grow into a harvest. Already, we are sampling this > we can see how now we are reaping emotionally according to how we have been sowing. For only one sample example of this > people have sown to themselves that rain is bad or dismal weather; so now such people are reaping all that time of feeling lousy whilever it is raining! But we could be appreciating how our Father is supplying us with His rain which is so needed for life on this planet. And we could be enjoying His raindrops as sweet kisses on our faces and relishing the sweet scent of rain . . . thanking God who "gives us richly all things to enjoy" (in 1 Timothy 6:17) < I would say this is more beneficial, among other things . . . to be able to enjoy what is free, in sharing with God in His love.

So, if people sow to themselves wrong ideas and attitudes, then they can now emotionally reap trouble and misery from that - - as a warning sample of how they could become eternally moreso after they are no longer in their present physical bodies.

"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life." (Galatians 6:7-8)

But ones in an evil spirit can turn a good thing into what they experience to be bad, like how Adam and Eve did after giving in to the disobedient spirit (Ephesians 2:2) witch had them afraid of God and feeling ashamed about God's good creation. Why, by the way, would DNA mutations produce just-physical beings feeling bad about something like rain which is so needed for our survival . . . for only one example?

nonsense . . . silly . . . Jesus says we will suffer for His name. Also, Hebrews 12:4-11 talks about how we need to seek our Father for His personal correction in every one of us who are His children; and there is pain in real correction >

"For whom the LORD loves He chastens,
.And scourges every son whom He receives."
. . . . . . . . . . . . . (Hebrews 12:6)

"Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." (Hebrews 12:11)

But I think this mainly means the pain of our ego suffering about correction > as the ego goes, so does the pain . . . about things about rain or correction.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Perhaps I was unclear. Let's use a simpler example. Let's imagine that there are only 5 religions in the world and let's further imagine that we know for certain that one of them must be right. The religions are:

Islam
Judaism
Christianity
Mormonism
J Witnesses

Since we do not know which one is true, we assign an initial 20% chance to each of them. Now let's analyze cost/benefit.

* Islam: 72 virgins in the afterlife. You have to either blow yourself up or travel to Mecca and pray 5-6 times a day.
* Judaism: Bosom of Abraham. You have to be circumcised, avoid pork, be generous, read Torah, etc.
* Christianity: Mansion in Father's House. You have to repent, be baptised, read the Bible, preach, etc.
* Mormonism: You become God. You can have all the wives you want in the next life. You spend all of eternity having kids and taking care of them. You have to pay tithing, go to the temple, wear weird underwear, and learn some handshakes.
* J. Witnesses: Live forever in paradise on Earth. You have to stand on street corners handing out Watchtower magazines. You probably have to do other things that I don't know about. Anyway, it doesn't matter because if you're a good person you get brought back in the millennium and you get a second shot at salvation.

I mean the simple back-of-the-envelope calculation indicates that being Mormon is the way to go. If you're right, you become God. What's better than that?

Obviously the real situation is more complicated than that. You have a lot more than 5 religions and there is no guarantee that any of them is right.

 

[com7fy8]

Christianity: Mansion in Father's House. You have to repent, be baptised, read the Bible, preach, etc.

Yes, mansions, but what matters most is being with Jesus while we have whatever.

And in this life > "he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him," we have in 1 Corinthians 6:17; this intimacy of being "one spirit with" God is deeper and better than any sort of human intimacy which tends to be surface-to-surface physical and involves being judgmental about who is good enough for us to love (Matthew 5:46). So, having a lot of wives and virgins "might" be inferior. There is quality so much more than quantity

And . . . again . . . what is the "chance" that humans would think this up? Even ones claiming to be Christians do not think of being so deep and intimate with God, in this life. We can be too busy with "cares of this life" (Luke 21:34).

 

[com7fy8]

Just when I think I understand . . .

Start simple, Jason . . . what is one thing you do understand?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Perhaps I was unclear. Let's use a simpler example. Let's imagine that there are only 5 religions in the world and let's further imagine that we know for certain that one of them must be right. The religions are:

Islam
Judaism
Christianity
Mormonism
J Witnesses

Since we do not know which one is true, we assign an initial 20% chance to each of them. Now let's analyze cost/benefit.

* Islam: 72 virgins in the afterlife. You have to either blow yourself up or travel to Mecca and pray 5-6 times a day.
* Judaism: Bosom of Abraham. You have to be circumcised, avoid pork, be generous, read Torah, etc.
* Christianity: Mansion in Father's House. You have to repent, be baptised, read the Bible, preach, etc.
* Mormonism: You become God. You can have all the wives you want in the next life. You spend all of eternity having kids and taking care of them. You have to pay tithing, go to the temple, wear weird underwear, and learn some handshakes.
* J. Witnesses: Live forever in paradise on Earth. You have to stand on street corners handing out Watchtower magazines. You probably have to do other things that I don't know about. Anyway, it doesn't matter because if you're a good person you get brought back in the millennium and you get a second shot at salvation.

I mean the simple back-of-the-envelope calculation indicates that being Mormon is the way to go. If you're right, you become God. What's better than that?

Obviously the real situation is more complicated than that. You have a lot more than 5 religions and there is no guarantee that any of them is right.

So what you are really trying to say is, "If you could pick one religion to be true, which one would you pick?"

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Yes, mansions, but what matters most is being with Jesus while we have whatever.

And in this life > "he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him," we have in 1 Corinthians 6:17; this intimacy of being "one spirit with" God is deeper and better than any sort of human intimacy which tends to be surface-to-surface physical and involves being judgmental about who is good enough for us to love (Matthew 5:46). So, having a lot of wives and virgins "might" be inferior. There is quality so much more than quantity

And . . . again . . . what is the "chance" that humans would think this up? Even ones claiming to be Christians do not think of being so deep and intimate with God, in this life. We can be too busy with "cares of this life" (Luke 21:34).

Also, it is hard enough to have one wife. I couldn't imagine 72 wives. It sounds more like hell to me.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Start simple, Jason . . . what is one thing you do understand?

Honestly, after the second paragraph I had to skip the rest. I am really not trying to be an ass and I know I am not the smartest man in the world, but it was very poorly constructed. I recommend rereading what you posted.

 

[Zosimus]

So what you are really trying to say is, "If you could pick one religion to be true, which one would you pick?"

Well, you have offered no reason for me to believe that Christianity is more likely to be true than Zoroastrianism, for example. Why then should someone prefer Christianity over Zoroastrianism, for example?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Start simple, Jason . . . what is one thing you do understand?

I hate to say it but you sound a lot like this.

 

[Hammster]

Well, you have offered no reason for me to believe that Christianity is more likely to be true than Zoroastrianism, for example. Why then should someone prefer Christianity over Zoroastrianism, for example?

They shouldn't. Atheism might even be better, or maybe universalism.

 

[Zosimus]

They shouldn't. Atheism might even be better, or maybe universalism.

If Atheism is better then why are you Baptist?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Well, you have offered no reason for me to believe that Christianity is more likely to be true than Zoroastrianism, for example. Why then should someone prefer Christianity over Zoroastrianism, for example?

Let's look at not only what is required to be saved but what the consequence if you are wrong.

My short answer is Christianity and I am not just saying that because I am a Christian. Look at it this way, lets just for arguments sake that Christianity is the not the one true religion yet I was a Christian who accepted Jesus. What would the consequence be?

In Islam, everyone goes to hell in order to have their sins purged with fire. Once they have been made pure they enter heaven. You only get 72 virgins if you are martyred in the name of jihad. So if Islam is the one true religion, the consequence of me being a Christian is spend time in hell for a temporary period of time before I go to heaven. However I will not have the virgins.

For Judaism, only natural born Jews are responsible to follow the entire OT law. Gentiles who want to be saved only need to obey the seven laws of Noah. The consequences of me being a christian would be that I would go to heaven because I already follow the seven laws of Noah.

Mormons believe in the same path to salvation that Christians do. However they believe there are different levels of heaven. So if Mormons are right, the consequences of me being a Christian is that I go to heaven, but I cannot be a God of my own world.

So as you can see, if I choose Christianity, I end up in heaven in some manner. It is only if Christianity is the one true religion and I am not a Christian will I spend eternity in hell.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Well, you have offered no reason for me to believe that Christianity is more likely to be true than Zoroastrianism, for example. Why then should someone prefer Christianity over Zoroastrianism, for example?

I did not think this thread had anything to do with showing any religion to be true.

 

[Hammster]

If Atheism is better then why are you Baptist?

Because God saved me. And Baptists best fits what I believe is the truth.

 

[Wgw]

Prescriptive decision theory holds that we should make the decision that has the best chance of getting us the best result. For example, if you are considering whether to play the lottery we should realize that the amount to enter vs. the chances of winning vs. the payoff makes that a bad idea/bet.

Applying this logic to Christianity, it seems that Christianity is a bad bet because:

A) The chances that Christianity is true are low.
B) The payoff if Christianity is right is insufficient.
C) The things you have to do to qualify for heaven are difficult.

Of course, this assumes that you're not just a mouth confession Christian. Some Christians believe that simply saying, "I invite Jesus into my heart" gets you salvation regardless what you do later in life. In that case, the logical decision seems to be to make a simple mouth confession of Jesus and then focus on another religion to get in essence a double shot at the prize.

How would you, as a Christian convince someone that:

A) Christianity is more probably true,
B) That the Christian afterlife is superior to other afterlives, or
C) That becoming Christian is a relatively easy/painless thing?

On this point, let us focus on (C). How badly is it going to ruin your life to be baptized, go to church periodically (and if one attends a liturgical denomination like the Eastern Orthodox, see some truly spectacular liturgics, with very splendid music), and then in general treat people the way you want to be treated?

The idea that the Christian faith is somehow unpleasant is entirely misguided. I particularly admire the almost decadent enthusiasm G.K. Chesterton had for the Roman church; I believe he felt the way I do about my Church. I willingly spent a large amount of money acquiring a liturgical library of music and service books owing to my enthusiasm for what we do.

I consider that the payoff referred to in B actually justifies Christianity in the here and now, owing to the benefits one obtains in terms of the pleasure derived from the sacred liturgy, the church family, and other things. I would not want to be agnostic simply because it is boring and socially isolating; why do that when I can have fellowship and enjoy as I am able a splendid and edifying liturgy? Of course, I suppose I could be an Agnostic Unitarian Universalist, however, their liturgics are not as good as Orthodox liturgics and I disagree with their politics.

One can of course derive similiar secular benefits from other religions. However, the point remains that on such terms, Christianity remains a valid competitor and a superior option compared to Agnosticism. In a sense, if Christianity is the Westin, and Mormonism, the Mariott (pun intended), for example, Agnosticism is basically sleeping rough.