Decision Theory

[Zosimus]

I don't believe this. Never believed, never will.

I ignored your first posts, but you keep posting so I'm going to respond to you.

First of all, I recommend that you re-read The Christian Apologetics Forum Statement of Purpose. The purpose of this area is so that I can challenge mainstream Christian belief and hear responses from mainstream Christians. Generally speaking, Mormons are not considered mainstream Christians and many mainstream Christians don't consider Mormonism to be Christian at all.

Second, my selection of the Mormon religion is just by chance. I am not attempting to say that Mormonism is better than or worse than any other religion. I could just as easily have picked Branch Davidianism. So while I appreciate your attempts to clarify what you believe as well as what you believe your religion believes, it is not relevant to Decision Theory.

My point, restated is this: Assuming religion X indicates that completion of certain prerequisites results in the adherent getting two palaces in the afterlife (a summer and a winter) whereas Christianity only offers a mansion (and perhaps a better transation of the word is "abode") then religion X seems better than Christianity unless one of the following can be demonstrated:

• That the requirements for getting into Christian heaven are less onerous than those for entering religion X heaven.
• That Christianity is more probably correct than is religion X.
• That Christian afterlife is actually more desirable than that of religion X.

To date the general consensus on the forum has been that:

Christianity is onerous and may involve persecution for beliefs.
Christianity is no more likely to be correct than any other religion.
Except for the argument that you get to be with Jesus, no one has defended Christian afterlife as particularly better than that of any other religion.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Does everyone get eternal life?
Is eternal life the same as immortality?
If not, how are they different?

Ok...if eternal life is not immortality, and eternal death is just death that was dealt by "the eternal", what would it be called when you are in a state of dying for all eternity?

 

[elopez]

I am not attempting to say that Mormonism is better than or worse than any other religion.

Wait, you aren't? Then what's up with this claim earlier: "A) there's no reason to believe that Christianity is better than Mormonism and B) if Mormonism turns out to be true, you do much better than if Christianity turns out to be true.."

Like I said earlier, in decision theory, >B is taken to represent "B is worse than A" and "A is better than B". So that you're claiming there is no reason Christianity is better than Mormonism is really to claim Christianity is worse than Mormonism as well. This just makes your argument more befuddled than what it was. I am sure there is clarification here?

religion X seems better than Christianity unless one of the following can be demonstrated:

• That the requirements for getting into Christian heaven are less onerous than those for entering religion X heaven.
• That Christianity is more probably correct than is religion X.
• That Christian afterlife is actually more desirable than that of religion X.

Wouldn't the burden be on you to show how religion X is better than Christianity, using these examples? I believe so. Again, you are making the claim, you need to support it.

As I also pointed out, if Christianity does turn out to be more rationale than X religion (for example, Mormonism), the first and last bulleted points are then irrelevant. If in decision theory, and on the prescriptive concept, where there is the "recommendation of the rational way to make decisions" that it is difficult to obtain some type of spirituality status or experience or whatever does not matter in comparison to the truthfullness of Christianity itself. That you think becoming God is cooler than being with God in fact becomes irrational as Christianity would be more rational than Mormonism.

Really I think your only argument can be made in relation to the rationality of X religion and Christianity. I still think YOU would have to make that case. So far it hasn't been made, or implemented very well.

 

[Alla27]

Does everyone get eternal life?

No, not everyone.

Is eternal life the same as immortality?
If not, how are they different?

No they are not the same. Immortality is to live forever. Eternal life is to become God.

YOU can ignore this post. I only like to give answers.

 

[Alla27]

Ok...if eternal life is not immortality, and eternal death is just death that was dealt by "the eternal", what would it be called when you are in a state of dying for all eternity?

It would be called "outer darkness".
This is the place for Lucifer/Satan, his demons and sons of Perdition. They call it SECOND DEATH in the Bible.

 

[Zosimus]

Ok...if eternal life is not immortality, and eternal death is just death that was dealt by "the eternal", what would it be called when you are in a state of dying for all eternity?

Well, my concept of death is when the spirit leaves the physical body. Accordingly, I cannot understand the concept of being in "a state of dying" for all eternity. You're either dead... or you're alive. Does that make sense?

 

[Zosimus]

Wait, you aren't? Then what's up with this claim earlier: "A) there's no reason to believe that Christianity is better than Mormonism and B) if Mormonism turns out to be true, you do much better than if Christianity turns out to be true.."

The selection of the Mormon religion is just because I think it makes a good illustration. I'm not here trying to say that Mormonism is better than Religion X, for example. ¿Captas?

Like I said earlier, in decision theory, >B is taken to represent "B is worse than A" and "A is better than B". So that you're claiming there is no reason Christianity is better than Mormonism is really to claim Christianity is worse than Mormonism as well. This just makes your argument more befuddled than what it was. I am sure there is clarification here?

I think you don't understand exactly what you're saying. The phrase is that decision A dominates decision B. Decision theory isn't about the difference between religions as much as it is about making decisions.

Wouldn't the burden be on you to show how religion X is better than Christianity, using these examples? I believe so. Again, you are making the claim, you need to support it.

Since Religion X is a fictitious religion simply for the purpose of illustration, I can define religion X as I please. The requirements might be as simple as saying that anyone who says "kwyjibo" at any point in his or her life will immediately be taken to God's right hand at the moment of his death, receive omnipotence, omniscience, and full inheritance with God, etc., etc., etc. In light of this situation, saying "kwyjibo" is a no brainer.

As I also pointed out, if Christianity does turn out to be more rationale than X religion (for example, Mormonism), the first and last bulleted points are then irrelevant. If in decision theory, and on the prescriptive concept, where there is the "recommendation of the rational way to make decisions" that it is difficult to obtain some type of spirituality status or experience or whatever does not matter in comparison to the truthfullness of Christianity itself. That you think becoming God is cooler than being with God in fact becomes irrational as Christianity would be more rational than Mormonism.

Well, if you think that Christianity is more rational than Mormonism (or Religion X) then it's up to you to make that case. "Be Christian because the Bible says so" isn't what I consider a persuasive argument.

Really I think your only argument can be made in relation to the rationality of X religion and Christianity. I still think YOU would have to make that case. So far it hasn't been made, or implemented very well.

Well, I disagree.

 

[juvenissun]

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?

In order to consider a problem seriously, one needs to wedge in from one question. Three questions are too many. Consider all three would usually result in nothing.

Consider your three questions, the one most appropriate to me would be:
How important is the afterlife to you?
To many, it is not an important issue at all. In that case, you may simply forget the whole thing.
Percentage of importance is not an issue here. Important means the importance is >50%. Not important means that it is <50%. If it is important, then you seriously pursue the answers. Otherwise, you don't. So, "I do not know" is not an answer it should be.

If you decide that it is an important issue, then it allows room for further discussion. If you decide otherwise, then you closed the door of discussion. So, in this case, the decision theory is not needed.

 

[elopez]

The selection of the Mormon religion is just because I think it makes a good illustration. I'm not here trying to say that Mormonism is better than Religion X, for example. ¿Captas?

Is it a good illustration? I think not. Espicailly when it comes to rationality. Your premise is that religion x is better than Christianity, though. At aome point in your argument you would have to make the case Mormonism is better than Christianity, less you continue in a vague illustration.

I think you don't understand exactly what you're saying.

I've asked you to clarify a similar statement, which did not happen, so I can only ask again: what don't I understand about what I'm saying?

The phrase is that decision A dominates decision B. Decision theory isn't about the difference between religions as much as it is about making decisions.

Again, I don't think incorporating decision theory is relevant to deciding religions. YOU are the one attempting to do so, not I, so I am fully aware that decision theory isn't about the difference between religions. Indeed, this was my point all along.

What I was describing, however, was that in decision theory there is no distinction between the often common language reference of betterness and converse worseness, and so "A>B" is taken to represent "B is worse than A" as well as "A is better than B". So tell me, which part of that don't YOU understand? As that seems to be common terminology in decision theory.

Since Religion X is a fictitious religion simply for the purpose of illustration, I can define religion X as I please.

Sure you can. You can make whatever crazy definition you please, but that isn't going to further advance your point.

Well, if you think that Christianity is more rational than Mormonism (or Religion X) then it's up to you to make that case. "Be Christian because the Bible says so" isn't what I consider a persuasive argument.

Well if I claim that then it is. Since Mormonism is just some illustration, and is not an example you're really putting forth, there isn't much to argue against...

 

[com7fy8]

You could have been a God, but you ended up as an accountant in the afterlife. It's not bad – Jesus visits you from time to time. But it's just not the same as becoming a God.

Wanting to "become a God" can be Satan's problem >

"'For you have said in your heart:
. "I will ascend into heaven,
. I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
. I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
. On the farthest sides of the north;
. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
. I will be like the Most High."'"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(Isaiah 14:13-14)

In Jesus we are family . . . "members of one another" (Romans 12:5, Ephesians 4:25) . . . we are "one body" (Colossians 3:15). So, we are not a bunch of individuals who each is seeking to be separate from others, each on one's own planet somewhere. But our Apostle Paul says "we shall always be with the Lord", in 1 Thessalonians 4:17.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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?

A) I wouldn't. It's not my job to convince people that my religion is the right one or to try and convert them.
B) If Christianity is true then there are no other "afterlives" available. Conversely, if Christianity is not true then whatever it has to say about life after death (and life after life after death) is irrelevant.
C) Formal conversion is, for most Christian traditions, a rather painless process. Generally it involves a period of catechesis which culminates in Baptism and receiving Communion for the first time. Of course if one is going through formal conversion than chances are they already have passed through the "hardest" part, namely, coming to believe in the first place--from a Lutheran perspective (seeing as I'm Lutheran) that is itself the act of God as faith is a gift that comes extra nos, that is, from outside ourselves.

-CryptoLutheran