Pascal's Wager and Faith

[Charlemagne_II]

Eleve

**That in no way protects me if I become Catholic and it turns out that the Muslims were right. If anything, this is a reason to latch on to the least forgiving God. **

Catholics and Muslims worship the God of Abraham. So do Protestants and Jews.

 

[Eleve]

Sure. Still irrelevant to Pascal’s Wager, though.

 

[Candide_West]

Candide:

And this

…

is not an argument?

God bless,
jd

Of course not, it’s just an explanation of why I don’t have any evidence against the existence of any gods. I’m curious, how that could be construed as an argument against the existence of a god?

 

[Candide_West]

It says, I don’t know how many times in the Bible, the Koran, etc., “Each will be rewarded according to their deeds.” Judgment according to belief would be simply unfair- it would come down to which part of the world you live in, or which era you live in. If I was born in Arabia, I would certainly be a Muslim. If you are good, there is some kind of reward, if you are bad, there is some kind of punishment. Maybe the punishment for being bad is nothing more than the state of being bad, and the unhappiness that brings

Ok, so you seem be saying that if the Christian God exists then I’ve got nothing to worry about, because I do the things he’d like me to anyway. Therefore Pascals wager has no impact on me one way or the other.

Incidentally you still haven’t answered the question regarding the chap sneaking up behind to stab you. I’d bet that you haven’t been looking over your shoulder though. Why? Because you seem like a pretty reasonable person, and I’m sure you’ll have realised that the consequences of behaving as if any hypothetical are true on the basis of only the consequences will lead you to absurdity.

 

[Candide_West]

Candide

There’s nothing honest about being an atheist when you have no proof whatever there is no God.

Again, weird statement, clearly there cannot ever be proof against the existence of any god. But you (like me) don’t believe in Thor, Allah and Zeus and thousands of other gods besides. Even though there is not even a shred of evidence against them, let alone proof that they don’t exist.

Honesty has nothing to do with it. You have issues with God, like all children have issues with their parents. The honest children are the ones who fess up to those issues and get beyond them back into a loving relationship with Dad.

Again, if you read the information at the top of my posts you will note that it says “Religion: None.”

If I had issues with your God that would mean that I believed in him, which would mean that I was a Christian. I can assure you that I am not. If you are going to keep insisting “you believe in him really, you just don’t want to admit it” then there is really no point to any further discussion. Or maybe I’ll just start to assert that you’re actually an atheist but are pretending to be Christian because you have fallen for Pascals wager and are thus think it’s in your best interest.

It’s presumptuous of you to say you know the mind of God, whether he is more annoyed by people who believe in false gods as opposed to those who refuse to believe in any gods. How would you know that? Why would making a mistake about choosing the wrong god be more fatal than refusing to worship the right one?

But it isn’t presumptuous when you say that you know the mind of god and that he would punish me for using the intellect he gave me. This seems supremely arrogant.

All I have said is that IF a god exists, AND is a jealous god (like Yahweh, with his first commandment of “thou shalt have no other god but me”) then I’m better off to have worshipped no god than worshipped the wrong one. That is just logic.

By the way, which God would be for you in the running against Jesus Christ?

Would it be Zeus? Athena? Apollo? Hera? Any of the above? And what criteria would you be using to eliminate Jesus in favor of any of the others?

I keep telling you, they are ALL eliminated by the same criteria - lack of any evidence for any of them. If ANY of them had evidence for them, then that would favor that god over the others. Until there is evidence for at least one of them, then I have no choice but to not believe in any of them.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Candide

Again, if you read the information at the top of my posts you will note that it says "Religion: None."

Again, to be honest means to be one who tells the truth. There is no evidence whatever that God does not exist. Therefore there is no “truth” that God does not exist. There may be a desire to not believe in God, and you may be truthful in expressing that you have that desire. But I think you are confusing that desire with truth when it is nothing more than desire desire.

The person who believe in God has more indicators of the existence of such a being than there are indicators that such a being does not exist. The fact that the universe began with a big bang (Let there be light!) is one such indicator. The fact that the universe seems to be designed to support life is another such indicator. There are many other indicators, each of which you can deny. But there are no indicators at all that there is no God. I cannot even deny the indicators you cannot produce. I can only deny your so-called honesty in saying they do exist.

But if you honestly believe there are indicators that God does not exist, produce them.

I hope you are not going to say the burden of proof is on the atheists. After all, it’s the atheists who are supposed to believe that everything has to be proved before they can believe it … that is, everything except atheism.

 

[Mijoy2]

I’ve never had the slightest shadow of a doubt that God exists.

As a boy I simply believed what I was told. Now, fifty years later, I know all the arguments, pro and con. It’s no contest. God Is.

Thank you for sharing this. When I hear this it strengthens my faith.

 

[atheistgirl]

Thank you for sharing this. When I hear this it strengthens my faith.

Why?

Sarah x

 

[Candide_West]

Candide

Again, to be honest means to be one who tells the truth. There is no evidence whatever that God does not exist. Therefore there is no “truth” that God does not exist.

Right, just like there is no evidence whatsoever that Thor, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pan do not exist. There is also no “truth” that they do not exist. It is just that you and I agree in not believing in those gods. I just apply the same principle to one more god than you do.

There may be a desire to not believe in God, and you may be truthful in expressing that you have that desire. But I think you are confusing that desire with truth when it is nothing more than desire desire.

Again, what do you think you have to gain by telling me that I believe in your god “really”. But just don’t want to admit it. Frankly it’s rather silly and childish. The fact is simply that I don’t, I did once, I don’t now. You can accept that or not depending on just how desperate you are to believe that everyone believes what you do.

The person who believe in God has more indicators of the existence of such a being than there are indicators that such a being does not exist.

This seems to be a meaningless sentence. As I have said, there is nothing that passes my criteria for or against the existence of any gods out there that people have believed in down through the ages. That includes yours.

The fact that the universe began with a big bang (Let there be light!) is one such indicator.

Why? In what way would the universe have had to begin for you to say that that showed that there definately wasn’t a god?

The fact that the universe seems to be designed to support life is another such indicator.

Strange statement, the vast, vast majority of the universe could not possibly support the existence of life. Surely you must be aware of that?

There are many other indicators, each of which you can deny. But there are no indicators at all that there is no God.

As I said, there is no evidence for or against the propostion which stands much scrutiny to deserve being called evidence.

I cannot even deny the indicators you cannot produce. I can only deny your so-called honesty in saying they do exist.

But if you honestly believe there are indicators that God does not exist, produce them.

??? What? I have specifically said that there is no evidence against the existence of any gods you could choose to name. I have stated this repeatedly on this thread, are you seriously now demanding that i present evidence against the existence of gods? If so then I’d advise that reading a persons post before replying to it is generally considered to be polite.

I hope you are not going to say the burden of proof is on the atheists. After all, it’s the atheists who are supposed to believe that everything has to be proved before they can believe it … that is, everything except atheism.

Argh, where to start. Most atheists do not ask for proof, because they are not so foolish as to think that science deals in proofs. We DO ask for evidence, because it is evidence which enables you to identify the false hypotheses from those which are true. Once again there is no evidence for or against the god hypothesis. Until there is I have no choice but to ignore it, just like I do for all the other theoretically possible scenarios my mind could invent.

With regards to religion this state of being is called atheism. Atheism is not a theory as such it is simply a default stance. I know that you aren’t going to want to accept that, but if it was on any other topic you probably would agree. Lets say that someone asked you whether you believe Political Group A or Political Group B (PGA or PGB) in some south east asian country you’ve never heard of has the correct approach. It’s likely you’d say something to the effect of “neither, I don’t know anything about them”. You would be described as “apolitical” about the situation in that country.

Lets say you try to look into it, looking to understand it and form an opinion and find absolutely **no evidence **whatsoever that PGA, PGB or indeed even the country exist. Your friend comes back and asks you again, you (sensibly) again say you don’t believe in either of their agendas because you have no way of knowing whether they even exist, let alone what each of them stand for. You remain “apolitical” about the events in that country awaiting evidence (for a starter) that the country exists.

Please note, once again, this is WILDLY off topic. Pascals wager admits only one thing about the evidence for gods existence and that is that it is not compelling. I agree with that statement. There really is nothing about evidence to debate here.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I submit we all live, to varying degrees, according to Pascal’s Wager. Few admit it.

I think what you are talking about is a bias that people have towards being risk averse. Some times this translates into some one passing an opportunity for large gains because of the risk involved and instead got for a lesser gain with lower risk. There’s also a tendency for one’s decisions to be altered based on whether or not a wording emphasizes a risk or a reward. For example if a medical procedure is proposed to a patient and the patient is told the procedure has a “40% chance of success” a person is likely to make their decision differently than if they had been told “there is a 60% chance of it not working” even though both statements contain the same information.

Risk Aversion has it’s own area in psychology. Risk assessment is also a profession of its own too.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Again, to be honest means to be one who tells the truth.

I’ll take a moment to be (possibly unnecessarily) technical.

What you’ve described is"being correct" which can differ from “being honest.” A person that is honest makes attempt to state what is true to the best of their ability. But there may be differences or gap between the person’s understanding or recollection of a squence of events and the actual sequence of events. When this occurs a person’s statements may be a misrepresentation. If the misrepresentation is intention then the person is being dishonest. If it is unintentional the person may just misunderstand. Distinguising one from the other requires some knowledge of what a person knows so at times it can be difficult to distinguish between the two.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Argh, where to start. Most atheists do not ask for proof, because they are not so foolish as to think that science deals in proofs. We DO ask for evidence, because it is evidence which enables you to identify the false hypotheses from those which are true.

Once again there is no evidence for or against the god hypothesis. Until there is I have no choice but to ignore it, just like I do for all the other theoretically possible scenarios my mind could invent.

It may be worth mentioning the concept of the “null hypothesis” too.

 

[Mijoy2]

Why?

Sarah x

No deep meaning. Simply because it helps me to know there are people out there who have such a strong faith. I am fully aware of the argument against this. It just helps me to know that there are people with a faith system stronger then my own. There is a chance it is a flawed faith, of course. But there is also a chance it is a more mature faith system.

No rocket science here.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Candide

**Please note, once again, this is WILDLY off topic. Pascals wager admits only one thing about the evidence for gods existence and that is that it is not compelling. I agree with that statement. There really is nothing about evidence to debate here. **

Not really off topic. All Pascal says is that the usual proofs for God are not compelling.

But he does not say these proof are not suggestive of God. In fact, as you read on in Pensees, Pascal goes on to list the various reasons to believe that not only is there a God, but the true God is the one preached by Jesus Christ.

Certainly the wager argument itself is not a compelling proof since it is not even a proff, but rather an appeal to our self interest, which ought to spur us on to belief.

That is precisely what you are doing here at Catholic Answers. You haunt the website daily in search of a reason to believe, because you are not really content with where you are. You threw away God, but God did not throw you away. You think you are haunting God. It is really God who is haunting you by daily bringing you to Catholic Answers.

A haunting we will go!

 

[Candide_West]

Candide

Not really off topic. All Pascal says is that the usual proofs for God are not compelling.

Right, because amongst other things, they are not proofs at all.

But he does not say these proof are not suggestive of God. In fact, as you read on in Pensees, Pascal goes on to list the various reasons to believe that not only is there a God, but the true God is the one preached by Jesus Christ.

Indeed, he makes a selection of arguments, but none of them apply to the wager. Indeed they are all summarised in the above “not compelling”.*

Certainly the wager argument itself is not a compelling proof since it is not even a proff, but rather an appeal to our self interest, which ought to spur us on to belief.

Exactly, it’s an attempt to convince people that believing a deity to exist is in our best interest. As I said before. Obviously it fails, it is convincing ONLY to people who find the evidence compelling and are thus already believers.

That is precisely what you are doing here at Catholic Answers. You haunt the website daily in search of a reason to believe, because you are not really content with where you are. You threw away God, but God did not throw you away. You think you are haunting God. It is really God who is haunting you by daily bringing you to Catholic Answers.*

Sigh. Ok then, here we go.

And you are only here on CAF because you do not believe in any gods at all, but you are pretending to because you think it is in your best interest to do so.*

Therefore you are making all these arguments in the hopes that if you can convince other people then maybe at some point you will convince yourself.*

 

[Gorgias]

Sigh. Ok then, here we go.

And you are only here on CAF because you do not believe in any gods at all, but you are pretending to because you think it is in your best interest to do so.*

Therefore you are making all these arguments in the hopes that if you can convince other people then maybe at some point you will convince yourself.*

:yup: LOL… you have to admit, Charlemagne, you left yourself wide open for that one!

(Making unsubstantiated assertions about the state of another’s mind will get you into those sorts of problems… )

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Candide
**
And you are only here on CAF because you do not believe in any gods at all, but you are pretending to because you think it is in your best interest to do so.***

No, I am here at Catholic Answers because, like yourself, I have been haunted by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Candide_West]

Candide

No, I am here at Catholic Answers because, like yourself, I have been haunted by the Holy Ghost.

Nope, you just want to believe that, because of Pascals wager.

 

[Candide_West]

:yup: LOL… you have to admit, Charlemagne, you left yourself wide open for that one!

(Making unsubstantiated assertions about the state of another’s mind will get you into those sorts of problems… )

 

[JDaniel]

Of course not, it’s just an explanation of why I don’t have any evidence against the existence of any gods. I’m curious, how that could be construed as an argument against the existence of a god?

Candide:

Re-read, if you will, your own words, maybe two or three times. They exhibit more than merely an “explanation.” They exhibit an underlying predisposition and presupposition, which is certainly an argument non-theists might use either for or against God’s existence. In fact, it is the argument of choice by non-theists in general.

God bless,
jd