Pascal's Wager Again!

[Charlemagne_III]

There is no way to assess the risk. Pascal’s wager assumes a god-concept with some specific attribes.

The first attribute we would be assuming, and it is reasonable one, is that God is a Creator to whom we owe some respect for having created us. That is hardly an unreasonable attribute to expect. The other attributes of God become manifest in time as we grow in our relationship and knowledge of God, either by thinking about God or by having revealed to us the word of God.

We assess the main risk by knowledge of our own human nature and our own human relations; that, for example, to have a father and mother who created us, and not to acknowledge them as father and mother, would be an act of supreme insolence.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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?

Yes. As a matter of fact, if you know your scriptures, you would know that on many occasions Jesus threatened dire consequences to follow if we disobey his commands. The principle commandments associated with Jesus are to love God and one another. Failing those commandments we are doomed. So yes, Jesus means to inspire fear, and out of this fear a growing love for him and each other. Fear by itself is not a base motive for most things. We fear to go hungry. We fear to offend each other. We fear to die. Fear gets a bad rap, though fear deserves to be abandoned when courage is called for instead of fear.

 

[guiltyofdoubt]

Yes. As a matter of fact, if you know your scriptures, you would know that on many occasions Jesus threatened dire consequences to follow if we disobey his commands. The principle commandments associated with Jesus are to love God and one another. Failing those commandments we are doomed. So yes, Jesus means to inspire fear, and out of this fear a growing love for him and each other. Fear by itself is not a base motive for most things. We fear to go hungry. We fear to offend each other. We fear to die. Fear gets a bad rap, though fear deserves to be abandoned when courage is called for instead of fear.

Sounds like Stockholm Syndrome, love growing out of fear I mean.

Also, I don’t believe threats to be the purview of the Merciful and Loving.

We can never truly achieve those commandments, as we are all Fallen, and rely on the Mercy of God alone for our salvation, but if the mercy is solely dependent upon belief, and we in our hearts have doubt, then that is not belief. It seems hopeless for those that struggle within, and Pascal’s Wager doesn’t make it any clearer or surer, even if it holds a certain logic.

 

[Aquinas21]

Perhaps this thread might benefit from some artistic encouragement.

I think that everyone (including atheists and agnostics) should be prepared to “tell it to the Judge” eventually.


attribution and license

 

[Tomdstone]

Yes. As a matter of fact, if you know your scriptures, you would know that on many occasions Jesus threatened dire consequences to follow if we disobey his commands.

Do you obey all of his commands?
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters–yes, even their own life–such a person cannot be my disciple."Luke 14:26
“And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.” Matthew 23:8

 

[Neoplatonist]

As an agnostic you have made a decision not to believe.

That’s like saying “you have not yet fallen in love with someone, therefore you have decided not to fall in love,” or “you have not yet decided if you agree with Hawking’s theory of black holes, so you have decided to not agree with it.” ?]

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Pascal answers that question too. You have to read the whole of Pensees to get the answer.

I read it all, and I’m trying to uncross my eyes :whacky: I’d never read him before and didn’t realize he uses 500 words when 20 would suffice.

Well he doesn’t give anything that disproves that Islam is the one true faith. He makes bold-faced assertions with nothing to back them up. He also makes repeated assertions as to the necessity of Jesus, but again he foregoes even the slightest logical foundation.

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

I agree with the former and disagree with the latter.

I try not to dismiss his wager as juvenile.

I never said the wager was juvenile. It is flawed in numerous ways but it does garner a great deal of discussion, and that discussion has worth.

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.

If I see religion after religion after religion each make mutually exclusive claims to their accuracy it’s not a stretch to think all of them are false. One should not reach specifically for God, but instead reach for truth. If that truth leads to a god than it is an honest search – far more honest than trying to convince oneself from the start that a predetermined end point is true to avoid a perceived future punishment.

 

[Tomdstone]

As an agnostic you have made a decision not to believe.

I don’t think that is true. An agnostic will say that perhaps God exists, but perhaps not. He is not sure one way or the other. He hasn’t come to a definite decision at this point in time, but is considering the arguments pro and con and is still undecided one way or the other.

 

[Tomdstone]

… I see religion after religion after religion each make mutually exclusive claims to their accuracy…

I wanted to focus on this phrase since this is something that bothers me also. In mathematics, if I prove that sum of the angles of a triangle in Euclidean geometry will always add up to 180 degrees, no one will disagree. In the whole world. There will not be one single person who can credibly claim otherwise. However, this is not true in religion. There are many Hindus, Mormons and Jews who will disagree with some basic Catholic doctrines. Even among the apostolic Christians, such as the Eastern Orthodox, there are serious disagreements with Roman Catholics. Also, if you present to a Roman Catholic the arguments given by Eastern Orthodox as to why Roman Catholicism is in error on this or that point, the argument will be absorbed just as water is absorbed off the back of a duck. But it is the same when you present to an Eastern Orthodox the Roman Catholic POV. He will not agree with your reasoning. This contrasts sharply with mathematics, when an error is exposed.

 

[Lou2U]

As an agnostic you have made a decision not to believe.

As other posters have said, just because I am agnostic now doesn’t mean I will always be. Being an agnostic does not mean I have made a decision not to believe in God, it means I don’t have enough knowledge to decide. An atheist makes a decision to not believe, an agnostic does not.

Lou

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The first attribute we would be assuming, and it is reasonable one, is that God is a Creator to whom we owe some respect for having created us.

You’ll need to be prepared to explain how you reasoned that out. It appears to be an opinion with which one might disagree. Not every one feels a creation is obligated to have feelings of respect for a creator. Deist would be one example (but not the only example) of a person that may believe there is a god but have indifferent feelings towards that god.

The other attributes of God become manifest in time as we grow in our relationship and knowledge of God, either by thinking about God or by having revealed to us the word of God.

That seems like something that would better resonate with some one that had already been convinced of your god-concept. But such a person doesn’t need Pascal’s Wager.

We assess the main risk by knowledge of our own human nature and our own human relations;

I’ve got no clue what you mean here. But okay.

for example, to have a father and mother who created us, and not to acknowledge them as father and mother, would be an act of supreme insolence.

This is most unconvincing to me.

Let’s say I go to a sperm bank and give a donation. A woman uses that donation to produce a child. (Or, if you prefer something more natural, suppose I have a one night stand). Decades later the child heads over to 23andme.com does a DNA test and we discover each other. I wouldn’t expect that child to necessarily have feelings of respect for me or acknowledge me as a “father” even though it can be shown that I was one of her genetic donors. It’s not supreme insolence.

A possible consideration for the allegedly obligatory respect might be the relationship that a parent has with that child. An adopted child might feel deep respect for her adoptive parents if there is a loving relationship there. Not being a direct offspring of the adopted parents might not matter. A nearly life long absent genetic donor might not motivate feelings of respect and a child might not feel obligated to acknowledge him.

I’ve already had this conversation with a friend that discovered the person she had thought to be her father for over 30 years actually wasn’t. Both she and he found this out by accident when she was about 30. For the both of them the discovery also brought about the realization that the genetic relationship was not nearly as valuable is the emotional one. She respects him and still calls him father not because of some creator-creation relationship, but because of a caring relationship. After the discovery her mother’s behaviour changed radically to the point of damaging the relationship that she had with her mother. She enjoys the company of the person that is not actually her father and prefers to avoid the company of the person that is her actual mother.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

We can never truly achieve those commandments, as we are all Fallen, and rely on the Mercy of God alone for our salvation, but if the mercy is solely dependent upon belief, and we in our hearts have doubt, then that is not belief.

First, salvation does not depend on belief alone. Pascal would never believe that. He also would not believe that faith WITH DOUBT IS NOT FAITH. It is only the refusal to believe that condemns us. We are charged to live with our doubts and overcome them in the end.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. If he refuses to drink, he will die. Any horse with horse sense knows this. If we refuse to drink the grace of God with faith and works, we will also die.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t think that is true. An agnostic will say that perhaps God exists, but perhaps not. He is not sure one way or the other. He hasn’t come to a definite decision at this point in time, but is considering the arguments pro and con and is still undecided one way or the other.

“He who is not with me is against me.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If I see religion after religion after religion each make mutually exclusive claims to their accuracy it’s not a stretch to think all of them are false. One should not reach specifically for God, but instead reach for truth.

I could not disagree more. God is truth, so if you are reaching for truth you are reaching for God.

If you are presented with three arguments that explain gravity, and these arguments radically disagree, it would be a s tretch to regard all three as false.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You’ll need to be prepared to explain how you reasoned that out. It appears to be an opinion with which one might disagree. Not every one feels a creation is obligated to have feelings of respect for a creator. Deist would be one example (but not the only example) of a person that may believe there is a god but have indifferent feelings towards that god.

That seems like something that would better resonate with some one that had already been convinced of your god-concept. But such a person doesn’t need Pascal’s Wager.

I’ve got no clue what you mean here. But okay.

This is most unconvincing to me.

Let’s say I go to a sperm bank and give a donation. A woman uses that donation to produce a child. (Or, if you prefer something more natural, suppose I have a one night stand). Decades later the child heads over to 23andme.com does a DNA test and we discover each other. I wouldn’t expect that child to necessarily have feelings of respect for me or acknowledge me as a “father” even though it can be shown that I was one of her genetic donors. It’s not supreme insolence.

A possible consideration for the allegedly obligatory respect might be the relationship that a parent has with that child. An adopted child might feel deep respect for her adoptive parents if there is a loving relationship there. Not being a direct offspring of the adopted parents might not matter. A nearly life long absent genetic donor might not motivate feelings of respect and a child might not feel obligated to acknowledge him.

I’ve already had this conversation with a friend that discovered the person she had thought to be her father for over 30 years actually wasn’t. Both she and he found this out by accident when she was about 30. For the both of them the discovery also brought about the realization that the genetic relationship was not nearly as valuable is the emotional one. She respects him and still calls him father not because of some creator-creation relationship, but because of a caring relationship. After the discovery her mother’s behaviour changed radically to the point of damaging the relationship that she had with her mother. She enjoys the company of the person that is not actually her father and prefers to avoid the company of the person that is her actual mother.

Being given the gift of life and being dismissive of the God who gave it is unconvincing to me.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Being given the gift of life and being dismissive of the God who gave it is unconvincing to me.

There no attempt to change your convictions on the god proposition. If a premise to your application of the wager is that creations owe their creator respecially then your presentation of the argument will not likely be effective. IThough i will resonate with people that already feel the same is you.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If a premise to your application of the wager is that creations owe their creator respecially then your presentation of the argument will not likely be effective. IThough i will resonate with people that already feel the same is you.

Most people think it is common sense to thank your Creator for creating you, whether that creator be man, woman, or God, Who created us all.

Chesterton said that one of the reasons he ceased to be an atheist was that he felt the need to thank Someone for everything, and atheism denied that possibility.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I could not disagree more. God is truth, so if you are reaching for truth you are reaching for God.

You may have missed my point. I’m not ruling out the possibility of a god (yours or someone else’s). The problem is that Pascal’s Wager is asking us not to search for truth and determine the conclusion from there, but to start with a conclusion. It’s to be willfully ignorant. If someone makes an honest search for truth and finds the Christian god, then it was done with open eyes. Pascal doesn’t want that, as his wager is all about consequences and not about truth.

If you are presented with three arguments that explain gravity, and these arguments radically disagree, it would be a s tretch to regard all three as false.

Everyone knows that objects fall to the ground. Heck, animals know objects fall to the ground. Gravity is true and no one presenting an argument on how gravity works has to convince the listener of gravity’s existence. But with my analogy in my first post I presented multiple people convincing the listener of the existence of their particular god, each of which means the others are by definition not true. Yet unlike gravity we can not be certain of any god’s existence. Even the Wager takes into account that god is not a given.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The problem is that Pascal’s Wager is asking us not to search for truth and determine the conclusion from there, but to start with a conclusion. It’s to be willfully ignorant. If someone makes an honest search for truth and finds the Christian god, then it was done with open eyes. Pascal doesn’t want that, as his wager is all about consequences and not about truth.

Perhaps you missed Pascal’s argument by a mile. Don’t think his argument is confined to one or two paragraphs about the wager. If that is all you have read of Pascal, I can see why you missed the point.

Pascal says we cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. So the search for that particular truth must depend not on the logic of the head, but rather on the logic of the heart. Do we desire a God, or do we desire there be no God? With the wager argument Pascal was addressing the atheists/agnostics of his day. He was trying to show them that the heart has reasons reason cannot know. The reason of the heart is to desire God, to desire to be with God, the desire to be with God forever. The desire of the heart to be as far away from God as possible seemed to Pascal an irrational desire. Yet there can be no doubt that this is precisely where atheists desire to be. If they did not have this desire, they would be open to God; they would bet on God rather than ultimate nothingness.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The desire of the heart to be as far away from God as possible seemed to Pascal an irrational desire. Yet there can be no doubt that this is precisely where atheists desire to be. If they did not have this desire, they would be open to God; they would bet on God rather than ultimate nothingness.

Often we hear the objection to the wager argument that it is based on fear of losing our eternal happiness, and that fear is an ignoble motive for loving God.

It is not, perhaps, the most noble reason for loving God, but fear of losing our own happiness can lead to love of God, just as any child’s fear of losing his parents can lead to him loving them all the more.

The real question to ask is whether fear is not a more potent motive for fleeing God. If it is, it is hardly a noble motive. Francis Thompson’s poem “The Hound of Heaven” suggests precisely that.

I fled Him, down the nights and down the days;
I fled Him, down the arches of the years;
I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways
Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears
I hid from Him, and under running laughter.
Up vistaed hopes I sped;
And shot, precipitated,
Adown Titanic glooms of chasmed fears,
From those strong Feet that followed, followed after.
But with unhurrying chase,
And unperturbèd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,
They beat–and a Voice beat
More instant than the Feet–
"All things betray thee, who betrayest Me."