Pascal's Wager Again!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Charlemagne_III

Guest
(excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

You must wager (it is not optional).

Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.

Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (…) 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. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

What say you all (or y’all if you’re from Texas).

Is it better to bet on eternal God or eternal nothingness? 🤷
 
Clearly there is only one choice, and that is to follow Islam. Allah threatens man with the eternal fire for not believing in him.

“Allah will leave the disbelievers alone for a while, but then he will compel them to the doom of Fire.” 2:126

“It’s you and your religion against them and theirs. They won’t stop fighting until they make you a “renegade from your religion” and if they succeed in that so you die in disbelief, Allah will burn you forever in the Fire.” 2:217

“Disbelievers worship false gods. The will burn forever in the Fire.” 2:257

But seriously, the Christian god is not the only one that threatens punishment for disbelief. How does one choose?
 
It’s too late for me to edit my previous post, but I should note that the surahs in the Quran that I noted are not direct quotes but paraphrases. When I can I’ll post accurate quotes.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
Click to expand...
This pretty much seems like a false dichotomy. It’s not hard to think of possibilities of believing and not being “saved”, not believing and being “saved”, or being condemned or annihilated no matter what, so on…
 
Charlemagne_III said:
(excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

You must wager (it is not optional).

Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.

Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (…) 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. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

What say you all (or y’all if you’re from Texas).

Is it better to bet on eternal God or eternal nothingness? 🤷
Click to expand...
I would rather believe in God because I truly believed than believe in God because of a 50/50 chance.

Lou
 
ThinkingSapien said:
This pretty much seems like a false dichotomy. It’s not hard to think of possibilities of believing and not being “saved”, not believing and being “saved”, or being condemned or annihilated no matter what, so on…
Click to expand...
I don’t think Pascal means by his argument to say that everyone who believes will be saved.

As to not believing and being saved, I don’t think anyone particularly wants to think like that without taking a huge and dangerous risk.
 
Lou2U said:
I would rather believe in God because I truly believed than believe in God because of a 50/50 chance.

Lou
Click to expand...
But as an agnostic you can’t believe. Pascal is asking you to believe because you can’t be certain that God does not exist.

What harm is there in believing if you cannot prove there is no God?

The risk of believing is a finite risk as long as you are alive, but if there is a God and you have dismissed him as an illusion, the risk to your immortal soul is an infinite risk.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
But seriously, the Christian god is not the only one that threatens punishment for disbelief. How does one choose?
Click to expand...
Pascal answers that question too. You have to read the whole of Pensees to get the answer.

Pascal was a great mathematician with a very keen mind for philosophy.

I try not to dismiss his wager as juvenile.

At the very least, it is not addressed to Muslims. It is addressed to atheists. The atheist is in a position to be condemned not for choosing between Christianity and Islam, but for choosing not to believe at all. At least the Christian and the Muslim are reaching for God. Whether they will grasp him in the end is a matter of their worthiness.
 
The fundamental problem with the whole approach is that we cannot “choose” to believe. We can, certainly enough, choose to act as if something were true. Love of God and Christ, like any other turning of the heart, is not some decision we weigh. To highlight this, just try telling your wife that you didn’t fall in love with her, but, rather, she came out as the smart bet when you reasoned through your options.

Did you “choose” to love your children or your mother?
 
Neoplatonist said:
The fundamental problem with the whole approach is that we cannot “choose” to believe. We can, certainly enough, choose to act as if something were true. Love of God and Christ, like any other turning of the heart, is not some decision we weigh. To highlight this, just try telling your wife that you didn’t fall in love with her, but, rather, she came out as the smart bet when you reasoned through your options.

Did you “choose” to love your children or your mother?
Click to expand...
When you meet someone for the first time, as the atheist is called to meet God for the first time, do you not choose to meet that person again? Or can you you not choose not to meet that person again and again?
 
Charlemagne_III said:
When you meet someone for the first time, as the atheist is called to meet God for the first time, do you not choose to meet that person again? Or can you you not choose not to meet that person again and again?
Click to expand...
It seems rather a stretch to interpret what the wager is calling for as “a personal meeting.” I think you well know from our other discussions that I would be exploded with joy if a personal meeting with Christ were the result of our choice! All we can do is be open to it and invite it.

That being said, I cannot choose to believe a person is real until I have met them, and I cannot choose to love them. Having met them and been captivated, I can, of course, choose whether to act on the feelings that have awakened.
 
Neoplatonist said:
It seems rather a stretch to interpret what the wager is calling for as “a personal meeting.” I think you well know from our other discussions that I would be exploded with joy if a personal meeting with Christ were the result of our choice! All we can do is be open to it and invite it.

That being said, I cannot choose to believe a person is real until I have met them, and I cannot choose to love them. Having met them and been captivated, I can, of course, choose whether to act on the feelings that have awakened.
Click to expand...
You seem to be missing the point entirely. Why do you do that?

The atheist is not open to meeting God and, as Chesterton said, is only looking for God as a thief looks for a policeman (which is to say for the purpose of escaping g, not meeting).

Curious to know: in one sentence, if possible, what is there in Platonism that you most admire?
 
Charlemagne_III said:
You seem to be missing the point entirely. Why do you do that?

The atheist is not open to meeting God and, as Chesterton said, is only looking for God as a thief looks for a policeman (which is to say for the purpose of escaping g, not meeting).

Curious to know: in one sentence, if possible, what is there in Platonism that you most admire?
Click to expand...
The underlying issue, at my entry point, is whether we can choose what we believe to be true. How have I strayed from that? As it progresses, we are now considering whether “I have met person x” or “I love person x” are examples of such beliefs and what it would mean to claim that I can “choose” them.

Not Platonism per se, but the Neoplatonic influence taken up into the Catholic tradition, in particular the mathematical modes of thought and the infinite scale and convergence of the Transcendentals. It is, however, an intellectual fascination, not a sufficient ground for a personal or living/loving relationship with the being at the apex of that scale.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
But as an agnostic you can’t believe.
Click to expand...
I am an agnostic now. That doesn’t mean that in 10, 20 years I will change my mind. Just as atheists can change their mind, just as a person from any religion can change their mind.
Charlemagne_III said:
Pascal is asking you to believe because you can’t be certain that God does not exist.
Click to expand...
No, I cannot prove that God does not exist. However, I cannot convince myself that there is a God at this moment in time. I should believe in God because I think He does exist, not because I can’t prove otherwise.
Charlemagne_III said:
What harm is there in believing if you cannot prove there is no God?
Click to expand...
As stated above, although I cannot prove there is no God, I need to have bigger, better reasons to believe in Him.
Charlemagne_III said:
The risk of believing is a finite risk as long as you are alive, but if there is a God and you have dismissed him as an illusion, the risk to your immortal soul is an infinite risk.
Click to expand...
The definition of an agnostic is ‘without knowledge’. I am not dismissing God as an illusion, I am saying that I don’t have enough knowledge to make a decision.

I apologise for any typos, I am using my phone to make this post.

Lou
 
Neoplatonist said:
The underlying issue, at my entry point, is whether we can choose what we believe to be true. How have I strayed from that? As it progresses, we are now considering whether “I have met person x” or “I love person x” are examples of such beliefs and what it would mean to claim that I can “choose” them.

Not Platonism per se, but the Neoplatonic influence taken up into the Catholic tradition, in particular the mathematical modes of thought and the infinite scale and convergence of the Transcendentals. It is, however, an intellectual fascination, not a sufficient ground for a personal or living/loving relationship with the being at the apex of that scale.
Click to expand...
Can your/Chesterton’s thief choose to believe there is a police woman if he’s never met one or met anyone who has actually met one? Could he be in love with her? Certainly he might be open to the idea that it is possible. Would he believe it so firmly that he takes some drastic measure like becoming celibate lest his lover be an undercover police woman?
 
Charlemagne_III said:
As to not believing and being saved, I don’t think anyone particularly wants to think like that without taking a huge and dangerous risk.
Click to expand...
There is no way to assess the risk. Pascal’s wager assumes a god-concept with some specific attribes. Unless the person being presented with the wager shares the same assumptions then there is nothing that is apparently lower risk about believing that one of the god-concepts is true. It would be like having a discussion for which there is not agreement on the premise to the discussion.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.
 
Lou2U said:
The definition of an agnostic is ‘without knowledge’. I am not dismissing God as an illusion, I am saying that I don’t have enough knowledge to make a decision.

Lou
Click to expand...
As an agnostic you have made a decision not to believe.
 
Tomdstone said:
If you are a Baptist from Texas it is better not to bet, since gambling is a serious sin which can send you to hell.
Click to expand...
Pascal was a Catholic, and he knew that when he left his house he was gambling that he would not get run over by a horse.
 
Personally, I am struggling with this very idea for the simple reason that I’m not sure if I believe or not, which means I must not to God, should God be there.

God knows our hearts, as it is said, so He would “know” if we believed or if we did not, even if we said, or acted, like we believed.

Would God accept acting out of fear to be belief? In other words, acting on Pascal’s Wager is not acting out of Love, but acting out of fear, so it seems to me that the wager doesn’t matter all if we are to believe that we must Love God Above Anything Else, that being the greatest commandment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top