Another view of "Pascal's Wager"

  • Thread starter Thread starter laylow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MPat,
re: “Oh, of course it’s possible.”

Perhaps you can help, then. I have never been able to consciously CHOOSE any of the beliefs that I have and I would like to be able to do that. Since you seem to be implying that you can consciously CHOOSE to believe things, I wonder if you might explain how you do it. What do you do at the last moment to instantly change your one state of belief to another?

What is it that you do that would allow you to say, “OK, at this moment I have a lack of belief that ‘x’ exists or is true, but I CHOOSE to believe that ‘x’ exists or is true and now instantly at this new moment I do believe that ‘x’ exists or is true?

Maybe you could use something like leprechauns to demonstrate your technique. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, a leprechaun is “a fairy peculiar to Ireland, who appeared in the form of an old man of minute stature, wearing a cocked hat and a leather apron” and further stores his gold at the end of a rainbow and if ever caught, has to grant 3 wishes. So, assuming that you don’t already have a belief in them, how about right now, while you are reading this, CHOOSE to believe - be convinced without a doubt - that they exist. Now that you believe in leprechauns, my question is, how did you do it? How did you make the instantaneous transition from lack of belief to belief?
 
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.
Thus, given that Pascal’s Wager considers just two options (being a Catholic and being an atheist), it doesn’t look like there are any problems there.
 
Thus, given that Pascal’s Wager considers just two options (being a Catholic and being an atheist), it doesn’t look like there are any problems there.
If you want to keep ignoring what I am proposing, then the practical thing to do would to just refrain from responding.
 
Gorgias,
re: “Really? You don’t make conscious decisions that discern between various (name removed by moderator)uts, leading you to a justified true belief?”

Can you give an example of what you mean?
 
MPat,

re: “Oh, of course it’s possible.”

Perhaps you can help, then. I have never been able to consciously CHOOSE any of the beliefs that I have and I would like to be able to do that. Since you seem to be implying that you can consciously CHOOSE to believe things, I wonder if you might explain how you do it. What do you do at the last moment to instantly change your one state of belief to another?

What is it that you do that would allow you to say, “OK, at this moment I have a lack of belief that ‘x’ exists or is true, but I CHOOSE to believe that ‘x’ exists or is true and now instantly at this new moment I do believe that ‘x’ exists or is true?

Maybe you could use something like leprechauns to demonstrate your technique. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, a leprechaun is “a fairy peculiar to Ireland, who appeared in the form of an old man of minute stature, wearing a cocked hat and a leather apron” and further stores his gold at the end of a rainbow and if ever caught, has to grant 3 wishes. So, assuming that you don’t already have a belief in them, how about right now, while you are reading this, CHOOSE to believe - be convinced without a doubt - that they exist. Now that you believe in leprechauns, my question is, how did you do it? How did you make the instantaneous transition from lack of belief to belief?
Oh, I see your problem. 🙂

My beliefs depend on what I will, not on what you will. 🙂

I do not will to believe that leprechauns exist - and I do not believe that. Why would I will otherwise? 🙂

Yes, you do will me to believe that. As you can see, it makes little difference.
Gorgias,

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

Can you give an example of what you mean?
He is telling you that you ended up claiming you are not actually reasoning (for he gave a description of reasoning). That would mean that you end up believing things at random or something.

I’d say that’s not what you were hoping to claim. And we obviously hope you will reconsider.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Gorgias:
Thank goodness you’ve been arguing from a position of knowledge, then. :roll_eyes: 😉

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.”
I suppose it ought to be pointed out to you that selection bias might be at work when you determine who your friends will be that you hang around with.

In addition, it may also be cognitive bias at work when you determine as “morally sound” behaviours which accord with your own moral standards which, unsurprisingly, we would suppose to be very similar to the determinations by which you choose who your friends will be. Why would we just suppose that what you consider “moral” is an objectively reliable standard?

In any case, here are some statistics that might just disabuse you of the belief that atheists, on the whole, are more moral than believers.

This is the death toll from self-proclaimed “atheist” regimes in the world in the ninety years between 1917 and 2007, with the addition of the ‘enlightened’ French revolution of 1793-4 to add perspective.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Total: 153 million dead.
Statistics from https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM

Not your friends, I hope? 😱
 
Last edited:
Nothing like skewed statistics. But, childs play compared to the number God killed.
 
Pascal’s wager isn’t gonna save you. If there’s a God, he’ll see through your petty attempt to get into heaven. He would want real followers, not people who believe in him to play it safe
 
Pascal’s wager isn’t gonna save you. If there’s a God, he’ll see through your petty attempt to get into heaven. He would want real followers, not people who believe in him to play it safe
Really? How do you know? 🙂

As a matter of fact, Catholicism considers that imperfect contrition is better than no contrition at all. By analogy, faith motivated by Pascal’s Wager is likely to be better than no faith at all.
Nothing like skewed statistics. But, childs play compared to the number God killed.
Are we supposed to take that seriously?

For that matter, these numbers do demonstrate that there are many atheists who aren’t all that saintly, when they have power.

Presumably, they would have benefited greatly if they had become Catholics instead.

Not all atheists are the same.
If you want to keep ignoring what I am proposing, then the practical thing to do would to just refrain from responding.
It is not all that clear what you are proposing.

In some posts it looks as if you talk about something loosely inspired by Pascal’s Wager, comparing options “being a Catholic” and “being a ‘theist in general’”. In some other posts it looks as if you are trying to suggest that something is a flaw of Pascal’s Wager.

Decide what exactly is your position, present it orderly, and we’ll see.
 
Really? How do you know?
I like to think that. Seems logical to me, but not as logical as the non-existence of God

As least non- belief is honest, not self interested, unlike believing so you can get your foot on the door. If God doesn’t get that, I’d have to question his intelligence
 
Last edited:
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.
Isn’t the Wager about generating the will? Wanting you to want …
Presumably, the target audience isn’t initially motivated to believe. Or at least that’s the way I see the modern usage of Pascal’s wager, which departs from the original purpose imo.
 
Last edited:
I like to think that. Seems logical to me, but not as logical as the non-existence of God
Perhaps you’d like to explain “rstrats” how you do it. 🙂

Also, “seems” and “logical” clash a little here. As if you could rely on mere feelings here.

If you want to show that something is “logical”, formulate an argument.
As least non- belief is honest, not self interested, unlike believing so you can get your foot on the door.
And you expect us to believe that atheism can’t possibly be dishonest? 🙂

For example, can you at least demonstrate that there is nothing dishonest about your atheism to yourself? Are you sure you are not deceiving yourself one bit? For example, can you demonstrate you never tried to avoid looking at some evidence, lest it persuades you to become a Catholic?

I don’t think that would be an easy task.

For that matter, there is nothing dishonest about trying to start believing because of Pascal’s Wager, as such. In fact, you didn’t even try to point out any way in which that would be so.
Isn’t the Wager about generating the will? Wanting you to want …

Presumably, the target audience isn’t initially motivated to believe. Or at least that’s the way I see the modern usage of Pascal’s wager, which departs from the original purpose imo.
But you didn’t offer anything like Pascal’s Wager to me. Only an “order”.

And I’m pointing out that it doesn’t work that way. You are not my boss. You don’t get to order me around, just because you want it.

In other words, as I noted, my beliefs depend on my will, not your will.

By the way, as you can see, “Curious11” also believes that God prefers atheism to theism based on Pascal’s Wager because he wills to believe that. 🙂
 
Last edited:
And you expect us to believe that atheism can’t possibly be dishonest?
You’re not pretending to believe in a non-existent deity just in case there’s a heaven.

Seriously, that’s a pretty pathetic basis for believing in God, you might as well be honest with yourself, I doubt God couldn’t see through it.
 
Last edited:
In other words, as I noted, my beliefs depend on my will, not your will.
Ahh I see. But if not to create the will to believe, which doesn’t exist in the targeted audience then what’s the point? I wouldn’t presume the target audience would use this argument against the believer even though some try.
 
You’re not pretending to believe in a non-existent deity just in case there’s a heaven.

Seriously, that’s a pretty pathetic basis for believing in God, you might as well be honest with yourself, I doubt God couldn’t see through it.
So, in other words, you can’t really demonstrate that atheism is always (or even “often” - or even “sometimes”) honest.

And thus you try to distract us with claims that something else might be dishonest.
You’re not pretending to believe in a non-existent deity just in case there’s a heaven.
“Non-existent”?

The Pascal’s Wager is a tie-breaker. Tie-breaker doesn’t come into play without a tie.

Pascal’s Wager is used when one has tried to make a decision “by truth” and has failed to do so.

Then if one has to make a choice, one can honestly believe any of those claims.
 
Last edited:
Ahh I see. But if not to create the will to believe, which doesn’t exist in the targeted audience then what’s the point? I wouldn’t presume the target audience would use this argument against the believer even though some try.
Let’s take a different example.

Mr. A is fat. He likes the idea of becoming less fat. He knows that eating less would help. Now, if he actually willed to eat less, he would be likely to do so. But if he merely likes the idea of willing to eat less, that won’t help that much.

Now liking the idea of willing to eat less is easy. Actually willing to eat less is harder.

And when atheists say that they wanted to believe, that sounds a bit like Mr. A liking the idea of willing to eat less.

One more example: “rstrats” gave me an “order” “Believe in Leprechauns!”. It didn’t work.

But I do will to believe that P=NP, and I do believe it.

What’s the difference? Merely giving an “order” is not going to get me to will to do as “ordered”.

Management (motivating people) would be much easier otherwise. 🙂

And yes, offering Pascal’s Wager is one way to do something to motivate people to believe in God. But there are other motivators to the other side (for example, people often do like some of their sins).
 
Last edited:
So, in other words, you can’t really demonstrate that atheism is always (or even “often” - or even “sometimes”) honest.
Atheism isn’t always honest, I guess? Who cares? I’m talking about a specific context and specific type of atheism. I’m saying if your brain tells you atheism makes more sense to you, believing in God just in case so you don’t close the door to a hypothetical heaven is dishonest. That’s not faith, that’s self interest. God would see through that.

If you’re scared of hell and decide to pray for God to makes things clear to you and give you answers in a moment of desperation, that’s a different thing and I have no problem with that, hell is pretty scary. But be honest, don’t go around claiming you’re a devout catholic and do good works only to have your own back on the small chance there is a God.
 
40.png
MPat:
And you expect us to believe that atheism can’t possibly be dishonest?
You’re not pretending to believe in a non-existent deity just in case there’s a heaven.

Seriously, that’s a pretty pathetic basis for believing in God, you might as well be honest with yourself, I doubt God couldn’t see through it.
Correct. It is a pathetic basis for believing in God, but it isn’t as pathetic as ascribing to anyone who does believe in God that same motivation.

In case it needs to be spelled out to you, your incapacity to see any other grounds for believing in God means that your atheism is the narrow and flip side of that pathetic belief. Nothing like a pathetic disbelief motivated by a pathetic belief.
 
And yes, offering Pascal’s Wager is one way to do something to motivate people to believe in God. But there are other motivators to the other side (for example, people often do like some of their sins).
I’m not Agnostic because i like my sins, I’m Agnostic because God doesn’t make sense and the Catholic church reeks of scams.

Before you ask why I’m here I’ll tell you. I have over 10 yrs theology and my mother used to be a moderator here back in the day. The ignorance of some Catholics about their own religion frustrates me to no end. More so basic ignorance that prevents them from embracing new ideas because it may offend God not that they know it will.

A good example is the church has no opinion on if there is alien life out there but I’ve straight up scene a mother slap a kid for asking if God made aliens.

So I have a vested interest in this site to remind Catholics what they actually believe and mild hope that someone can convince me to be Catholic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top