Another view of "Pascal's Wager"

[HerCrazierHalf]

Oh, of course it’s possible. It’s just that you chose to hold a belief that that’s impossible.

I wonder why…

“Impossible” might be a high bar, but it’s pretty close. I bet that if you asked a few nonbelievers here, most have tried to believe in the past but just couldn’t.

 

[MPat]

“Impossible” might be a high bar, but it’s pretty close. I bet that if you asked a few nonbelievers here, most have tried to believe in the past but just couldn’t.

Oh, it might well be that that’s the answer we’d get. But by itself it doesn’t mean that it is the truth.

For it is a suspiciously convenient answer. It is precisely the answer one is likely to try to believe - or to claim to believe. Even if it is wrong.

For that matter, perhaps it would be a good idea to separate ease of believing when one already wills to believe and ease of getting oneself to actually will to believe.

I suspect that generating the will is harder.

 

[laylow]

Not in this case.

If you want to expand the Pascal’s Wager to handle more religions, you have to look how they actually “work”, not how you would prefer them to “work”.

laylow:

If Pascal can have I wager, so can I. The rest I’m not understanding what you mean.

Sorry, I’m not sure I can decipher that… You probably meant to write “than with the means” instead of “that the means”, but even that doesn’t make it all that clear…

Could you please restate your position in a bit more detail?

laylow:

I meant I’m more concerned with the result (The morality a person has) as opposed to how they derived at the result (whether they believe in a higher power or not)

We do not have to imagine things here. Look at how religions that consider Jesus to be merely a man think about this. For example, do Muslims prefer atheists or Catholics? (I get an impression that they do prefer Catholics over atheists.)

You are too biased with religion. Morals should be judged by their own merit, by the actions taken by the person. A Catholic priest that molests kids doesn’t have good sexual morals (example)

I’m afraid I do not know what you were trying to say here…

Those two things would go further to someone’s “salvation” than their belief, if any logic is applied. Again, actions determine reality, not thought.

 

[Kei]

There are serious philosophical difficulties if you believe God is “evil” and wants you to live a terrible, sinful life.

 

[Kei]

Catholics are theists

 

[Gorgias]

I am used to hearing the traditional Pascal’s Wager and the arguments for it. However, it just refers to belief in God, not a specific religion.

The fact that Pascal’s wager doesn’t tell us which deity to worship is why I reject the wager.

I would respond that ignoring the context in which Pascal makes his claims, in order to deny that he’s talking about Christian belief, is deliberately facile. Read the Pensees sometime. Do a search, if even only on the word “Christian”, in its contents. If you then wish to claim that he’s not mounting a defense of Christianity, then present the evidence. I promise you, if you’re honest, you will not be able to do so.

When I think about it from that perspective, I think Christians are quite ballsy.

That’s because you haven’t read the Pensees. Do read it, please.

(If you’ve read the text of the wager, you know that it’s Christian belief that he addresses in the lead-up to it, and belief in the Christian Scriptures that he addresses in the midst of it. Ballsy? Hardly. On point.)

Maybe it would have back then, but now that there are more religions prominent in everyday culture, I don’t feel the wager can be used anymore.

It’s meant to persuade a non-believer to accept Christianity. Why is that irrelevant today?

I disagree. I know many atheists that are more morally sound than believers.

Irrelevant. I can pick a population of murderers and a population of any other group, and if I pick and choose correctly, can make any assertions I want. It’s called “selection bias.” Congratulations in engaging in it…

The Wager is flawed right from the start since it’s based on the notion that beliefs can be consciously chosen, and of course that is impossible.

Really? You don’t make conscious decisions that discern between various (name removed by moderator)uts, leading you to a justified true belief? Hmm…

 

[MPat]

If Pascal can have I wager, so can I. The rest I’m not understanding what you mean.

OK, let’s try a different way. Pascal’s Wager would also work if non-Catholic religion could be true, as long as it would prefer Catholics to atheists, if only a little.

Thus, if you want to argue against Pascal’s Wager in such way you have to show this assumption to be false or at least unjustified. I’m pointing out that in reality other religions do prefer Catholics to atheists, thus this assumption is justified.

Thus even if neither atheism and Catholicism would be true, being a Catholic would still be better than being an atheist.

You are too biased with religion. Morals should be judged by their own merit, by the actions taken by the person. A Catholic priest that molests kids doesn’t have good sexual morals (example)

At this point I was talking about the “direct” result of religion.

I meant I’m more concerned with the result (The morality a person has) as opposed to how they derived at the result (whether they believe in a higher power or not)

Those two things would go further to someone’s “salvation” than their belief, if any logic is applied. Again, actions determine reality, not thought.

And thoughts determine actions.

For example, can you list many examples where a good atheist became a Catholic, and ended up a worse man?

All that Pascal’s Wager needs here is an assumption that an atheist who becomes a Catholic is more likely to become a better man than to become a worse man.

Are you willing to deny this assumption explicitly?

 

[laylow]

That’s because you haven’t read the Pensees. Do read it, please.

Maybe I will.

(If you’ve read the text of the wager, you know that it’s Christian belief that he addresses in the lead-up to it, and belief in the Christian Scriptures that he addresses in the midst of it. Ballsy? Hardly. On point.)

I suppose he would if it was the majority religion in the world. Not hardly surprising.

Irrelevant.

Not if you think belief is a free ticket to salvation.

 

[MPat]

Not if you think belief is a free ticket to salvation.

Um, who exactly is thinking so?

 

[Gorgias]

We’d have to go another step forward and prove Christianity to be true above other religions in today’s society.

Couldn’t you make the same argument, iteratively, for Christianity vs any other religious belief?

Notice that Pascal deals with this question implicitly. He makes the appeal to Scriptures – Christian Scriptures – but then deals with the claim “but if I do not know the Scriptures?”… and his response is believe anyway.

You can make a claim that the Wager is meant to defend against atheists; but you can’t get away from the fact that it’s a Wager for Christian belief and against a lack of Christian belief.

 

[Gorgias]

Maybe I will.

Thank goodness you’ve been arguing from a position of knowledge, then.

Gorgias:

Irrelevant.

Not if you think belief is a free ticket to salvation.

If you address the claim of selection bias successfully, I’ll move on to this claim.

 

[laylow]

OK, let’s try a different way. Pascal’s Wager would also work if non-Catholic religion could be true, as long as it would prefer Catholics to atheists, if only a little.

“It” would prefer, or God would prefer? I think the only real interest would be how someone’s “afterlife” is affected, not about satisfying the principle.

I’m pointing out that in reality other religions do prefer Catholics to atheists, thus this assumption is justified.

Thus even if neither atheism and Catholicism would be true, being a Catholic would still be better than being an atheist.

Who cares what other religions prefer? It would only matter what “God” prefers.

At this point I was talking about the “direct” result of religion

My point is, I don’t think religion affects people’s actions that much. That are much more important factors such as poverty, health, etc.

And thoughts determine actions.

For example, can you list many examples where a good atheist became a Catholic, and ended up a worse man?

All that Pascal’s Wager needs here is an assumption that an atheist who becomes a Catholic is more likely to become a better man than to become a worse man.

Are you willing to deny this assumption explicitly?

Yes I deny it. I know many people who have given up their religion and are not worse people. I’ve known about people whom have become Catholic priests just to be around little boys, so yes it happens.

 

[laylow]

Thank goodness you’ve been arguing from a position of knowledge, then.

laylow:

Gorgias:

As if you are never guilty of that practice. Throw the stones…

If you address the claim of selection bias successfully, I’ll move on to this claim.

I never claimed selection bias. You want statistics? I don’t have any. I know the people I’m around and associate with and most non-believers I know are more morally sound than the “believers.”

 

[Gorgias]

Christianity isn’t the only religion in America.

It wasn’t the only religion in France, either.

 

[Gorgias]

I never claimed selection bias.

I know. I demonstrated that your claim could be accounted for by virtue of selection bias – and therefore, that makes it an invalid claim.

I know the people I’m around and associate with and most non-believers I know are more morally sound than the “believers.”

Well… that’s a solid proof, then…

 

[laylow]

Well… that’s a solid proof, then…

Just as much proof as Pascals. Also, I don’t need proof, I have faith.

 

[MPat]

“It” would prefer, or God would prefer? I think the only real interest would be how someone’s “afterlife” is affected, not about satisfying the principle.

Who cares what other religions prefer? It would only matter what “God” prefers.

If some other religion was true, then God (or gods, or whatever it believes in) would obviously prefer whatever this religion prefers (or it wouldn’t be true).

I’d say you should look at real religions instead of your fantasies.

My point is, I don’t think religion affects people’s actions that much. That are much more important factors such as poverty, health, etc.

If it doesn’t there is no harm in becoming a Catholic.

Yes I deny it. I know many people who have given up their religion and are not worse people. I’ve known about people whom have become Catholic priests just to be around little boys, so yes it happens.

The Pascal’s Wager does not talk about merely pretending to believe to others, but about believing.

And “have given up their religion and are not worse people” is also good enough for Pascal’s Wager. Draw is sufficient here.

Not to mention that “religion” and “Catholicism” is not the same thing.

 

[laylow]

If some other religion was true, then God (or gods, or whatever it believes in) would obviously prefer whatever this religion prefers (or it wouldn’t be true).

I’d say you should look at real religions instead of your fantasies.

laylow:

You like to bring up religion. If I start a religion tomorrow and claim I’m the Son of God, most people will call that blasphemous.

By the same token, if Christianity is wrong and Jesus is not God, then Christians are believing in a blasphemous religion.

And since you mention religions, by most religions accounts, claiming someone God that was not God, would not be taken to kindly by God.

 

[MPat]

You like to bring up religion. If I start a religion tomorrow and claim I’m the Son of God, most people will call that blasphemous.

By the same token, if Christianity is wrong and Jesus is not God, then Christians are believing in a blasphemous religion.

And since you mention religions, by most religions accounts, claiming someone God that was not God, would not be taken to kindly by God.

And again, all that matters here is if that would be worse than being an atheist.

Well, would it?

 

[laylow]

And again, all that matters here is if that would be worse than being an atheist.

Well, would it?

Probably not. But I think it would be worst than a general theist. It’s not all that matters. That is the premise I brought up in the first place.