Pascal's Wager and Faith

[JDaniel]

Correct. I was only using homosexuals as an example. I agree that they are not necessarily singled out in the law of the church, although they certainly are singled out by the enforcers of that law. Still, that’s completely off topic.

Poseidon:

Would that more countries, and peoples, follow the lead of Catholicism. But, alas, many don’t.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

By my use of the term evidence there is no evidence for or against the proposition. Much like the other examples I provided. As I said, different people use the term to mean different things. Take Empther for example.

As I said though, if you wish to start talking about evidence then we should really do so on a different thread. All that the Wager says about the evidence is that it is not compelling in either direction. I agree with this statement.

Candide:

Another thread would be fine. May I suggest that I start. But, before you launch in with counter attacks instantly, I further suggest that you list yours. Then, I suggest that we alternate working on them, one at a time, one of mine, then one of yours, etc. We’ll work each one until we’ve exhausted it, and only then move on to the next one. But, rather than merely walking away from the argument, I suggest we inform each other that we’re exhausted of that argument before moving on. OK?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Ok, that doesn’t however answer the many reasons why it fails.

Candide:

Most of us know precisely what Pascal meant. Bringing up decision theory, and these other things, are merely distractions. So, you can postulate whatever you want to postulate, but, that does not change the clarity which we have for his wager.

Yes, that is the wager. Obviously the gaps as discussed previously are still present. The fact that this argument could be applied to any hypothetical situation and that Pascals four options do not come close to the infinite array of possible gods and moralities that could be used by gods in assigning post life rewards and punishments.

But, they were not.

God bless,
jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Candide

Very strange statement. If someone is an atheist then by definition they do not believe in your god (or any god). Clearly people do not fear what they do not believe to exist. Think about this for a moment. Do you fear the boogeyman? Freddy Kruger? The loch mess monster? Hades?*

I don’t buy this either. Since there is a God, I know he haunts everyone.

Every atheist fears that he might be wrong, that Catholics might be right.

Why are you here at Catholic Answers if there is no fear of God that haunts you?

 

[empther]

Ok. So you have B.S. in chemistry, noted. Hmmm B and S… I heard that before.

It’s sad to have to watch a mental pigmy try to mix it up with the big boys. :imsorry: :bighanky:

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Candide

Yes, that is the wager. Obviously the gaps as discussed previously are still present. The fact that this argument could be applied to any hypothetical situation and that Pascals four options do not come close to the infinite array of possible gods and moralities that could be used by gods in assigning post life rewards and punishments.*

This has already been answered in post # 73. You are welcome to name any other gods that are alternatives to our God. But then you have to explain why that god is more likely to be the true God than ours is.

You can’t do it. Or can you?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Moreover, this article goes a good way toward proving that God haunts us all the way through life, but especially as we near the end of life.

reuters.com/article/2012/04/18/us-religion-belief-idUSBRE83H05W20120418

 

[Serious]

It’s sad to have to watch a mental pigmy try to mix it up with the big boys. :imsorry: :bighanky:

Don’t despair…

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Ok, that doesn’t however answer the many reasons why it fails.*

Yes, that is the wager. Obviously the gaps as discussed previously are still present. The fact that this argument could be applied to any hypothetical situation and that Pascals four options do not come close to the infinite array of possible gods and moralities that could be used by gods in assigning post life rewards and punishments.*

Indeed, seems odd that. Why so concerned people wouldn’t take it seriously?*

Because, like now, he lived in a time of extreme skepticism.

Maybe now you think his wager is silly. But maybe when you are close to death, you might not think so.

 

[Candide_West]

Candide:

Another thread would be fine. May I suggest that I start. But, before you launch in with counter attacks instantly, I further suggest that you list yours. Then, I suggest that we alternate working on them, one at a time, one of mine, then one of yours, etc. We’ll work each one until we’ve exhausted it, and only then move on to the next one. But, rather than merely walking away from the argument, I suggest we inform each other that we’re exhausted of that argument before moving on. OK?

God bless,
jd

Jd,*

Afraid you’ve lost me somewhat here. List my what? If this is referring to evidence then I think I’ve been pretty clear that I don’t have anything I would call evidence against the existence of a god. Indeed, I think it’s always possible to postulate an undetectable god. The things people put forwards as evidence against a god do not pass muster as evidence to me.

Equally the things people put forwards as evidence for the existence of god (ie “the universe”)do not pass muster as evidence to meeither.*

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Candide

*Equally the things people put forwards as evidence for the existence of god (ie “the universe”)do not pass muster as evidence to meeither. **

The atheism is a kind of faith without evidence?

That is consistent with Pascal.

 

[Candide_West]

Candide:

Most of us know precisely what Pascal meant. Bringing up decision theory, and these other things, are merely distractions. So, you can postulate whatever you want to postulate, but, that does not change the clarity which we have for his wager.

Exactly, and if the wager works for the christian god then it is just as valid for all those other postulates too. However, you DON’T act as if they are all true. Why not? I strongly suspect it is because you don’t find the evidence for them compelling. Just like I (and indeed Pascal) say the evidence for God is not compelling.

In other words the wager is convincing to people who already believe because they find the evidence compelling (or have sufficient “faith” to believe despite a lack of evidence), and unconvincing to people who do not find the evidence compelling.*

Or to put it more simply, it’s convincing ONLY to those who are already convinced. Hence the wager fails on its own terms.

But, they were not.

Indeed, but they should have been. Thus this is an error in the wager.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Candide

Or to put it more simply, it’s convincing ONLY to those who are already convinced. Hence the wager fails on its own terms.

No, it doesn’t. Its own term is that we are compelled to accept the wager in our own interests. The point being that if we deny all gods equally, all gods (that is, whichever one is the true one) are likely to be equally offended. Atheism therefore is offensive, no matter which god you pick.

The only chance we have is to pick a god who seems the most rational choice to pick.

That would be the God of Christianity.

You can argue that one of the other gods is a more rational pick, but you haven’t done so yet. Does that mean you can’t find a better pick? If you can, again, do let us know!

 

[Anselm33]

Exactly, and if the wager works for the christian god then it is just as valid for all those other postulates too. However, you DON’T act as if they are all true. Why not? I strongly suspect it is because you don’t find the evidence for them compelling. Just like I (and indeed Pascal) say the evidence for God is not compelling.

In other words the wager is convincing to people who already believe because they find the evidence compelling (or have sufficient “faith” to believe despite a lack of evidence), and unconvincing to people who do not find the evidence compelling.*

Or to put it more simply, it’s convincing ONLY to those who are already convinced. Hence the wager fails on its own terms.

Indeed, but they should have been. Thus this is an error in the wager.

I find your arguments less than convincing. Despite the problems that philosophers raise with the Wager (many of them having to do with paradoxes involving infinity–e.g the St. Petersburg Paradox), there is a simple decision analysis option, the minimax regret principle, to use the Wager as a basis for rational belief in God. See the link quoted in my earlier post:
facebook.com/note.php?note_id=171231979581598
I would be interested to hear a non-biased response.

 

[Eleve]

Two responses you might have missed: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=668487&page=5#post9226913

 

[Candide_West]

Candide

No, it doesn’t. Its own term is that we are compelled to accept the wager in our own interests.*

Right, and it fails to do so. Because of the reasons stated. IF it was possible before we started on the wager to eliminate with certainty any and all other theoretically possible beings who could assign rewards and punishments after human life ends. THEN the wager might well be useful. *

The point being that if we deny all gods equally, all gods (that is, whichever one is the true one) are likely to be equally offended. Atheism therefore is offensive, no matter which god you pick.

Nope, it is only offence to a tiny proportion of the infinite array of possible gods. You have just picked one who does and assume the same applies for all others. That is obviously an error.

The only chance we have is to pick a god who seems the most rational choice to pick.*

Nope, firstly it’s not a choice. Belief is not something volitional. Secondly the other option is to simply admit “I don’t know” until there is some evidence. I would say that is the rational choice.

That would be the God of Christianity.*

… In your personal opinion. Obviously others disagree.

You can argue that one of the other gods is a more rational pick, but you haven’t done so yet. Does that mean you can’t find a better pick? If you can, again, do let us know!

You seem to have a good line in odd arguments on this thread. Have you not noticed that my info bar says Religion: None.*

Once again I know of no evidence for any god or goddess. In the absence of such there is no rational basis for picking one out of the even the tiny array of gods that people have believed in (thousands of them) through the ages. Let alone the much wider array of theoretically possible gods.*

 

[Candide_West]

I find your arguments less than convincing. * Despite the problems that philosophers raise with the Wager (many of them having to do with paradoxes involving infinity–e.g the St. Petersburg Paradox), there is a simple decision analysis option, the minimax regret principle,*

I’ve highlighted a couple of the problems. How about we run a simple example and you tell me what you think?*

There could be, right now, someone silently sneaking up behind you with a knife to stab you. There is no evidence either way. There are four possible options…

1). You look over your shoulder and there is nobody there. Result: no effect. Cost: effectively zero.

2). You don’t look over your shoulder and there is nobody there. Result: no effect. Cost: zero

3). You look over your shoulder and there IS somebody about to stab you. Result: massive benefit - you run away and get to have the rest of your life. Cost: effectively zero

4). You don’t look over your shoulder and there IS someone about to stab you. Result: you die. Cost: huge - your life.*

So according to pascals wager you should check over your shoulder right? So, do you actually go around checking behind you every Few minutes? If not, why not?

to use the Wager as a basis for rational belief in God. *

It isn’t, nor was it intended to be. The aim of the wager was to convince people that being Christian is in their best interests, so they should TRY to be. It does not even attempt to provide a rational basis for belief. Pascal does this in other parts of his writing, but it’s not what the wager is about.*

*See the link quoted in my earlier post:

Doesn’t seem to work, I just get a page reporting an error.

I would be interested to hear a non-biased response.

I am doing my best. Alas because everyone has a point of view, everyone has some form of bias.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Candide

You seem to have a good line in odd arguments on this thread. Have you not noticed that my info bar says Religion: None.*

And so you are precisely the kind of person Pascal’s wager is addressed to.

It’s obvious that you don’t think any religion is worth anything. But that is a cerebral judgment. According to Pascal, you should let your heart in on the action, becasue it has reasons the intellect cannot fathom. One of those reasons is that hope springs eternal in the human heart. When you douse the flame of hope, you become somewhat less than fully human. Ask anyone who feels hopeless about anything.

I have been there. I know what it means to be an atheist, and I know what it means to chuck that for something better … vastly better … something that does not presume to know for a fact that God is a delusion for the mentally challenged, as most atheists clearly believe.

When you say or imply that all religions are delusional, this even presumes a bias on your part against all religion, since you cannot possibly have studied all religions and judged them all to be delusional.

My guess is that you haven’t studied Christianity at all … except maybe from a cerebral distance.

So when the atheist dies and stands before Christ to be judged, what will be his plea?

“Lord, you didn’t make a convincing case.”

His answer will be the same as it was to Thomas.

“Blessed are those who believe and have not seen.”

 

[Qoeleth]

I’ve highlighted a couple of the problems. How about we run a simple example and you tell me what you think?*

There could be, right now, someone silently sneaking up behind you with a knife to stab you. There is no evidence either way. There are four possible options…

1). You look over your shoulder and there is nobody there. Result: no effect. Cost: effectively zero.

2). You don’t look over your shoulder and there is nobody there. Result: no effect. Cost: zero

3). You look over your shoulder and there IS somebody about to stab you. Result: massive benefit - you run away and get to have the rest of your life. Cost: effectively zero

4). You don’t look over your shoulder and there IS someone about to stab you. Result: you die. Cost: huge - your life.*

So according to pascals wager you should check over your shoulder right? So, do you actually go around checking behind you every Few minutes? If not, why not?

Ok, with the possibility of someone behind your shoulder with a knife- if someone told me that there was someone there, that would constitute some evidence that there was, so I would then check.

Now, most cultures tell us that there is some kind of God, so that is evidence (in a sense)-kind of like someone warning us about the person with the knife.

A person may not believe there is a God. Fair enough. But maybe people like Augustine, Epictetus, Aquinas (ugh!), Pascal- maybe these people, who were not dunces, got it right. Even a convinced atheist would have to concede that there is a pretty good chance that the collective opinion of most history and most cultures could be right- that there is a God.

I am a committed Catholic- I am prepared to admit there is a good chance I am totally wrong about my beliefs. But if I am, the decision to live like a Christian won’t be any real loss- perhaps it will even be a gain. But now, can an atheist admit, just as freely as I do, that there is a good chance they are totally wrong?

 

[Anselm33]

Thanks for pointing that out. While you’re right that this avoids my previous objection, there are at least two objections that do apply to the maximin argument:

The first is just the familiar many-gods objection. If I adopt the maximin principle, my decision will be for whichever alternative has the best worst-case scenario. But the worst-case scenario of Christianity isn’t what Pascal says it is: if any of, to give a few examples, the Muslim God, the Professor’s God (that’s the one who rewards skepticism and punishes mercenary faith), and a malicious God were to exist then Christianity would have just as bad an outcome as the case where Christianity is correct and the agent rejects it. So maximin won’t get me to my decision. And if I appeal to some sort of tiebreaker, then that’s just to say that the maximin Pascal’s Wager does no actual work: I decide whatever I end up deciding because of the tiebreaker, while the weight of the Wager is by definition neutrally balanced.

The second objection is that the maximin principle here is ad hoc. We are not, in our daily lives, maximin decision-makers: we recognize that, for example, the worst-case outcome of crossing the street is still worth even the trivial benefits of going out for ice cream. Perhaps you’re suggesting that I’m mistaken and that I should be a maximin decision-maker, or at least that I should be on some topics. In that case, I’d like to see the argument.

I’m not sure I follow your first argument. If you use a regret minmax option, then you choose the outcome you will regret the least. (see the link in the original post for a pertinent example). to me it’s clear that least regretful link (if one were to choose wrongly), amongst a number of religious options, or others would be that of a Christian God and afterlife.
I don’t believe that your second argument is relevant. There are many instances where we don’t act rationally–bet on the lottery even though the odds (expectation value) is against us; take on insurance (again, even though expectation values argue against doing so).
The principal arguments against Pascal’s Wager are that belief is not a matter of will, so even though prudence might dictate belief, if grace is not given, we aren’t able to believe,
as the postings of atheists in this thread show. In my view, Pascal’s Wager is “Insurance for the agnostic”, those who aren’t sure but might be led to belief.