Another view of "Pascal's Wager"

[IWantGod]

Most certainly it would be “safer” to be a theist?

I think, pascals wager only works when faced with the possibility of absolute nihilism.

Most atheists don’t honestly perceive themselves as living in a nihilistic reality and neither do they take its consequence seriously in their day to day lives.This is what allows them to operate with some sense of dignity despite the fact that there is none if they are correct. Thus their lives can continue in the illusion that their thoughts, feelings, and behavior, are not absurd.

Pascals wager is for those who do understand the reality of nihilism and the impossibility of living with it on a psychological level. Thus in that context it seems more reasonable to wager that there is a purpose, meaning, and moral value to their existence (and thus there is a God) rather than go through life assuming that their lives have no true meaning, purpose or moral value or that any value they have is subject to the egotistic fantasy going on in someone else’s head or is subject to societies opinions. In fact it seems absolutely absurd for somebody to wager nihilism over theism.

To place ones hope in Theism is a revolutionary act, existentially and psychologically speaking because it is freedom from absolute absurdity…

 

[rstrats]

MPat,
re: “My beliefs depend on what I will…”

How do you define “will” as you are using it in your comment?

 

[HarryStotle]

Love you too. Have a nice day

If you are going to patheticize or pathologize an entire religion along with Pascal’s thoughts, and not expect a bit of blowback perhaps you aren’t as firmly rooted in reality as you suppose. Not to mention that by assuming no one, not even Pascal, has ever considered your objection to any depth seems just a tad presumptuous. You might, in fact, want to examine why you would presume an individualistic rendering of Pascal to begin with.

Here is Pascal’s statement at its most succinct.

But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; wherever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all…

Why would suppose that Pascal is speaking of saving your own skin from hell? Perhaps by “eternity of life and happiness,” Pascal means in a general sense where by your commitment to seeking the truth on eternal destinies, your active response in terms of not jeopardizing the possibility of eternity for others by your words and efforts and deeds, and working towards the possibility of eternal salvation for all, it isn’t merely your own skin or your own salvation that Pascal is getting at, but the chance of far, even infinitely, greater effect.

Perhaps by “an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain,” Pascal means the difference your actions might mean not just for yourself but for everyone around you, those further impacted and the effects of your actions down through all of history which might affect a huge multitude of persons – as numerous as the sands on the seashore. Think the faith of Abraham.

It would seem to me that only a narcissist whether an atheistic one or a Christian one (if that be possible) would be merely concerned with their own salvation and no one else’s and their own happiness and no one else’s.

Not that Christian concern doesn’t preclude being concerned about ones own fate, but it need not mean Pascal was only concerned to present the wager as being solely about one’s own happiness or that he believed individual happiness was even possible absent infinite concern for the destiny of others. That would be your interpretation of Pascal.

 

[Curious11]

Hope you’re enjoying the nice day I wished for you. Great time to be alive

 

[MPat]

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.

At this point it would look as if you are talking about a case where one actually has arguments against existence of God, and judges that position to be stronger “by truth”.

Yes, in that case Pascal’s Wager, being a tie-breaker, doesn’t come into play, as we have no tie.

Of course, in fact such case is, um, rare, as atheists usually have but tie-breakers of their own (“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!” and the like).

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.

And now we see that you are not really talking about such a case.

In fact, you do not care about reason, you care about feelings.

Which is why you think that faith based on being scared (a feeling) is justified, while faith based on Pascal’s Wager (an argument) is not.

And which is why you think that faith going against one’s feelings and based on an argument, on reason, is dishonest.

We, on the other hand, hold reason in higher regard than feelings. And thus we see nothing wrong, nothing dishonest, in acting in accordance to reason, even when feelings do not cooperate.

 

[MPat]

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.

First of all - how do you know those are the real reasons?

For that matter, “doesn’t make sense” and “reeks” don’t sound like pointers to arguments, but like pointers to feelings.

And yes, there are feelings that are strong motivators.

However, it doesn’t make them rational.

 

[MPat]

MPat,

re: “My beliefs depend on what I will…”

How do you define “will” as you are using it in your comment?

“Catholic Encyclopedia” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15624a.htm) gives such definition:

The term will as used in Catholic philosophy, may be briefly defined as the faculty of choice; it is classified among the appetites, and is contrasted with those which belong either to the merely sensitive or to the vegetative order: it is thus commonly designated “the rational appetite”; it stands in an authoritative relation to the complex of lower appetites, over which it exercises a preferential control; its specific act, therefore, when it if in full exercise, consists in selecting, by the light of reason, its object from among the various particular, conflicting aims of all the tendencies and faculties of our nature: its object is the good in general (bonum in communi); its prerogative is freedom in choosing among different forms of good.

It also notes that there is another meaning (which might be the one you’re expecting):

As employed in modern philosophy, the term has often a much wider signification. It is frequently used in a loose, generic sense as coextensive with appetite, and in such a way as to include any vital principle of movement ab intra, even those which are irrational and instinctive.

 

[Cyril]

I found deep systematic corruption built into the church. Not from without but made intentionally into the system to preserve the needs and desires of a select few. This in not a feeling, it’s a fact. The word reek was chosen because something can look good but smell of mold.

On the other side there are a number of things built into the human condition that the church decries. I won’t be made to feel guilty over how my body works to satisfy how someone thinks.

Add to that the exausting amount of Catholic who think they know thier own faith but don’t doesn’t help.

 

[MPat]

On the other side there are a number of things built into the human condition that the church decries. I won’t be made to feel guilty over how my body works to satisfy how someone thinks.

And so, we have an admission: you do like some things the Church considers to be sins.

I found deep systematic corruption built into the church. Not from without but made intentionally into the system to preserve the needs and desires of a select few. This in not a feeling, it’s a fact. The word reek was chosen because something can look good but smell of mold.

That’s so strangely unspecific that I suspect that feelings really are behind all that.

Although, of course, I do not expect you to agree.

Add to that the exausting amount of Catholic who think they know thier own faith but don’t doesn’t help.

And another case where feelings seem to rule.

Sure, if the Church had a teaching claiming that all Catholics will learn Catholic teaching well, it was possible to construct an argument here.

But Church does not have such a teaching.

 

[Cyril]

And so, we have an admission: you do like some things the Church considers to be sins.

No my body has functions that happen on their own the church would shame me for. I don’t have to do anything.

That’s so strangely unspecific that I suspect that feelings really are behind all that.

Although, of course, I do not expect you to agree.

Saying something like its true doesn’t make it so, Its not a feeling its research. You want to be specific then make a new thread or message me in private, I’m not about to derail a thread to entertain your questions.

And another case where feelings seem to rule.

That’s not a feeling, that is a fact. I’ve a seen a mother straight up slap a kid for asking if aliens are real. The church has no real stance on that but a kid with an inquisitive mind was punished to conform to an idea that technically only exist in the mind of a misinformed parent.

There are many examples of this all littered over this very forum. People who think they know what the church teaches saying harsh things shaming people in the name of beliefs that have no backing because they don’t conform to some ideal catholic attitude.

 

[BartholomewB]

Not that Christian concern doesn’t preclude being concerned about ones own fate, but it need not mean Pascal was only concerned to present the wager as being solely about one’s own happiness or that he believed individual happiness was even possible absent infinite concern for the destiny of others. That would be your interpretation of Pascal.

If we’re talking about the Wager alone (fragment 397 in Le Guern’s edition of the Pensées) then I think that is exactly what Pascal is saying. It was the argument he used when addressing the gamblers he knew in Paris in the 1650s. He was telling them simply that is was in their own self-interest to believe in God. Of course, that is not the whole of what Pascal had to say about the Catholic faith, by any means. . It was just one argument he used to address one specific group of people in a certain place at a certain time. Fragment 397 runs to seven pages in Le Guern’s edition, or less than 2 percent of the 440 pages of the Pensées (not including the prefaces, notes, indexes, etc.)

 

[MPat]

No my body has functions that happen on their own the church would shame me for. I don’t have to do anything.

OK, let’s add that ignorance of Church doctrine might be a factor here too.

For if something just happens and you have no control over that at all (like a reflex), there is no culpability.

But I doubt you gave a very accurate description here…

That’s not a feeling, that is a fact. I’ve a seen a mother straight up slap a kid for asking if aliens are real. The church has no real stance on that but a kid with an inquisitive mind was punished to conform to an idea that technically only exist in the mind of a misinformed parent.

Slapping is a fact, your anger over that is a feeling. Exaggeration and misdirection of that anger so that it would be directed against the Church is also irrational, and, obviously, based on feelings, not reason.

 

[laylow]

The conversation has far diverted from my original question. Pascal’s Wager was brought up on my part to further explain the logic I was presenting, not a specific argument for or against the wager, or for it to be specifically discussed.

It was to bring light to the reality that if Christians are wrong about Jesus, they are worshiping a false god. Therefore exploring the truth based on evidence should seem to be somewhat important to them (and everyone). I don’t think many Christians think about it in this way, so I wanted to get reactions.

 

[MPat]

The conversation has far diverted from my original question. Pascal’s Wager was brought up on my part to further explain the logic I was presenting, not a specific argument for or against the wager, or for it to be specifically discussed.

It was to bring light to the reality that if Christians are wrong about Jesus, they are worshiping a false god. Therefore exploring the truth based on evidence should seem to be somewhat important to them (and everyone). I don’t think many Christians think about it in this way, so I wanted to get reactions.

If you want the thread to be about one thing only, at the very least don’t introduce other directions yourself. Like this:

But how does he know a nonbeliever that lives a good life won’t be treated better than a believer who doesn’t live so great in the theoretical afterlife?

The moment you say something like that, it becomes OK for the rest of us to respond.

Not to mention that this new direction is more interesting than the one you originally intended.

For there your point is that, let’s say, if Islam was true, being a Muslim would be more “profitable” than being a Catholic. Well, yes, naturally. And if Catholicism is true, being a Catholic is more “profitable” than being a Muslim.

That only means that unmodified Pascal’s wager is not very useful here. And that’s fine - it was not meant to solve all questions alone.

 

[Cyril]

OK, let’s add that ignorance of Church doctrine might be a factor here too.

For if something just happens and you have no control over that at all (like a reflex), there is no culpability.

But I doubt you gave a very accurate description here…

Well the fact is your being condescending and failing you represent your church as a matter of discourse.

 

[MPat]

Well the fact is your being condescending and failing you represent your church as a matter of discourse.

I have to admit I don’t know what “failing you represent your church as a matter of discourse.” is supposed to mean…

As for “being condescending”, of course, I did not expect you to be very happy being told that your position is based on feelings and not on reason.

 

[laylow]

If you want the thread to be about one thing only, at the very least don’t introduce other directions yourself. Like this:

Didn’t say only direction, just trying to get attention back to what I was stating.

Not to mention that this new direction is more interesting than the one you originally intended.

Totally your opinion.

For there your point is that, let’s say, if Islam was true, being a Muslim would be more “profitable” than being a Catholic. Well, yes, naturally. And if Catholicism is true, being a Catholic is more “profitable” than being a Muslim.

A big piece of my argument is that many argue that evidence does not matter for theology. That simply makes no sense because clearly many people don’t think that Zeus is God, so they must be going by ‘some’ evidence. So for Jesus to be god, are they going by evidence or by what they were taught when they were growing up? It’s quite a claim to hold, so why would a person not seek to acquire the best evidence possible, with no bias?

That only means that unmodified Pascal’s wager is not very useful here. And that’s fine - it was not meant to solve all questions alone.

Don’t know what you mean by this.

 

[Cyril]

I have to admit I don’t know what “failing you represent your church as a matter of discourse.” is supposed to mean…

It means you are being uncharitable, assuming and condescending. Does that simply it for you?

As for “being condescending”, of course, I did not expect you to be very happy being told that your position is based on feelings and not on reason.

You can state a fact without demeaning the listener.
Just in your case I fail to hear one.

 

[MPat]

Totally your opinion.

Yes. In one sense it is.

In another sense, the thread didn’t develop in the direction you would have preferred, because it is not just my opinion, but opinion of some other people.

A big piece of my argument is that many argue that evidence does not matter for theology.

Many?

Don’t know what you mean by this.

Let’s say we have the winnings matrix like this:

            Atheism Catholicim Islam
Atheist       0      -100      -100
Catholic      0       100       -90
Muslim        0       -90       100

Option of being an atheist is clearly dominated by other two options, but the Pascal’s Wager itself does not let us to choose among those two.

Thus we need something else to make that decision. Technically, even a random number generator would work, but, of course in reality we have arguments that are to be preferred here.

It means you are being uncharitable, assuming and condescending. Does that simply it for you?

Yes, thank you.

You can state a fact without demeaning the listener.

Just in your case I fail to hear one.

OK, I would be happy to hear any specific ideas for improving the way I’m arguing.

So, how would you reword something I said?

 

[laylow]

Option of being an atheist is clearly dominated by other two options, but the Pascal’s Wager itself does not let us to choose among those two.

Assuming the values make sense, which they don’t.