Pascal's Wager Argument

[JDaniel]

OK. Do you know that 2+2 = 4? Or instead, do you have faith that 2+2 = 4?

KB:

Just make your point. You don’t have to spell, we’re all adults here.

God bless,
jd

 

[kbachler]

Our late great pope, JPII, would disagree with you here, kbachler.

Actually, I doubt he would disagree. Read what you quoted for context. Then read it again carefully for an actual proof.

For example, consider this portion:

1. A scientific hypothesis such as that of the expansion of the un;verse, makes the problem all the more clear. If the universe is in a state of continual expansion, should not one go back in time to that which could be called the “initial moment”, the moment in which that expansion began? But, whatever the theory adopted concerning the origin of the universe, the most basic question cannot be avoided This universe in constant movement postulates a Cause which, in giving it being, has communicated to it this movement, and continues to sustain it. Without such a supreme Cause, the world and every movement in it would remain “unexplained” and “inexplicable”, and our intelligence would not be satisfied. The human mind can receive a response to its questions only by admitting a Being who has created the world with all its dynamism. and who continues to maintain it in existence.

First, consider the quote in blue. This is simply untrue. It doesn’t postulate any such thing. We, in our very limited way, are use to the fact that in an object is in motion, it must have been set that way by someone or something. But we know from further study that this is not the case. There are TRULY RANDOM events in the universe. This is provable (see quantum electrodynamics.)

Then consider the quote in cyan. If we continue to think of quantum events, these quantum events do not remain unexplained, or inexplicable, and our intelligence is in fact satisfied. What we learned is that the universe works in ways that at first seemed foreign to us and that we didn’t understand.

And because we now know that the universe works this way, we do not have to admit a “prime mover” - an argument that goes back to Aristotle, and that is no more correct today than it was in his day.

Argument 3 is just wrong. Period.

There is a reason why you believe in God. If you could prove Him, there would be no need for belief; in fact, belief wouldn’t even make sense.

Pope John Paul II does say "However, this faith in a God who reveals himself, also finds support in the reasoning of our intelligence "

This is what he means by “proof”. But this is not a proof in a philosophic or scientific sense. What he means to say is that there are arguments which offer appeal; they offer support of our belief. But support is support - not proof.

There is no proof of God.

 

[kbachler]

KB:

Just make your point. You don’t have to spell, we’re all adults here.

God bless,
jd

The example was a simple one and wasn’t intended in a condescending way. It makes the point. Please, answer the question.

 

[kbachler]

Did I miss the announcement? The tooth fairy is a god?
And how can any kind of faith be blind? Wouldn’t it be logical to know what one has faith in? Good grief. I wonder what it could possibly be that my faith in it prevents me from knowing it because it is blind.

grannymh, my first sense is that I agree with you; yet, I see many that don’t know what they have faith in, that are blind to real knowledge about it - maybe even afraid of real knowledge. I can see in these forums those that (mistakenly) think science challenges their faith. So I must conclude that many do have blind faith, which I see as a bad thing.

 

[Pieman333272]

Then astrologers have faith.

They do. Astrology is founded entirely on faith.

I’m sorry, I don’t believe in blind faith, and I don’t believe God requires or wants that from us. We were commanded to love God with all our heart, all our soul, all our strength, and all our mind, We weren’t commanded to believe in the tooth fairy.

But knowing God through reason is the direct opposite of blind faith!

 

[kbachler]

They do. Astrology is founded entirely on faith.

But knowing God through reason is the direct opposite of blind faith!

I agree. And that’s the point I’ve been making.

But knowing Him through reason is not proof.

 

[JDaniel]

The example was a simple one and wasn’t intended in a condescending way. It makes the point. Please, answer the question.

KB:

I make the same request of you. You do not answer my question/request and then require me to answer a simplistic question as a sort of response? For what purpose?

However, I have read your previous and recognize that you have not explicated Aquinas’ First Way precisely. You have obtained some falsification data and accede to such without further ado. I shall await PRmerger’s response to you then, I might ask for permission to butt in.

God bless,
jd

 

[grannymh]

grannymh, my first sense is that I agree with you; yet, I see many that don’t know what they have faith in, that are blind to real knowledge about it - maybe even afraid of real knowledge. I can see in these forums those that (mistakenly) think science challenges their faith. So I must conclude that many do have blind faith, which I see as a bad thing.

If you set aside the last sentence conclusion and keep the importance of real knowledge, then that just may invalidate Pascal’s wager from the get-go.

 

[kbachler]

If you set aside the last sentence conclusion and keep the importance of real knowledge, then that just may invalidate Pascal’s wager from the get-go.

But keep in mind that in a logical sense (a Pascalian sense, being he’s a mathematician) that we cannot have “real knowledge” of God. Only belief. So the wager always works (I would word it slightly differently from the OP, and just point out that believing in God has a huge upside and little downside, whereas disbelief may have moderate upside but HUGE downside.)

Which choice is the big mistake and which is the small mistake (if either is a mistake?) is another way to look at it.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

But keep in mind that in a logical sense (a Pascalian sense, being he’s a mathematician) that we cannot have “real knowledge” of God. Only belief.

Aye, there’s the true rub: no matter what, you end with a belief from a bet, which has what to do with Reality of God? Even a belief in something that exists is vastly different. “I beleive I can swim” is vastly different than being in water and drowning or swiming. Even “I know that glass of water will quench my thirst” is vastly different than actually downing it. So basically Pascal’s wager is a fictitious means to a fictitious end.

 

[kbachler]

Aye, there’s the true rub: no matter what, you end with a belief from a bet, which has what to do with Reality of God? Even a belief in something that exists is vastly different. “I beleive I can swim” is vastly different than being in water and drowning or swiming. Even “I know that glass of water will quench my thirst” is vastly different than actually downing it. So basically Pascal’s wager is a fictitious means to a fictitious end.

Actually, its not vastly different. A belief from a bet is a belief from something that Pascal can actually KNOW. He’s starting with real knowledge. And then he’s taking real action based on that. I don’t see how its so different.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Actually, its not vastly different. A belief from a bet is a belief from something that Pascal can actually KNOW. He’s starting with real knowledge. And then he’s taking real action based on that. I don’t see how its so different.

I’m sorry, Pascal, unless you know otherwise, believedin God, eh? That’s what rankles me about faithers: the unwarented exchange of “know” for “believe.” Yes, from the inside you kacn “know” you religion as a paradigm or construct, but funda-mentally it is premised on faith. Faith is a grown up word for “let’s act as if…” It may be utterly sincere and even feel profound. But it is a beleif, not knowledge. It is “about.” It assumes that an ancient “treasure map” is the territory itself.

 

[grannymh]

But keep in mind that in a logical sense (a Pascalian sense, being he’s a mathematician) that we cannot have “real knowledge” of God. Only belief. So the wager always works (I would word it slightly differently from the OP, and just point out that believing in God has a huge upside and little downside, whereas disbelief may have moderate upside but HUGE downside.)

Which choice is the big mistake and which is the small mistake (if either is a mistake?) is another way to look at it.

For me, real knowledge resides in the knower and not the knowee.

 

[grannymh]

But keep in mind that in a logical sense (a Pascalian sense, being he’s a mathematician) that we cannot have “real knowledge” of God. Only belief. So the wager always works (I would word it slightly differently from the OP, and just point out that believing in God has a huge upside and little downside, whereas disbelief may have moderate upside but HUGE downside.)

Which choice is the big mistake and which is the small mistake (if either is a mistake?) is another way to look at it.

When taken at face value, believing that a supernatural transcendent being exists is like believing that Pan exists. Question – did Pascal indicate anything about a personal God?

I got the impression that somehow living a morally good life was part of the wager. The OP speaks of “acting in the best interest of the self”. Is that a form of Utilitarianism? I know what “best interest of the self” is from a Catholic viewpoint, but that is based on the concept that God is a personal God.

Frankly, I am beginning to think that the logical sense (a Pascalian sense, being he’s a mathematician) doesn’t work with ordinary folk.

 

[grannymh]

Aye, there’s the true rub: no matter what, you end with a belief from a bet, which has what to do with Reality of God? Even a belief in something that exists is vastly different. “I beleive I can swim” is vastly different than being in water and drowning or swiming. Even “I know that glass of water will quench my thirst” is vastly different than actually downing it. So basically Pascal’s wager is a fictitious means to a fictitious end.

I just posted some of my weird ideas before reading this. Could I also be seeing Pascal’s wager as a fictitous means? The end may or may not be fictitious. However, I don’t want to say bad things about a person. So let us assume that Pascal is acting in good faith. In that case, what is the underneath message in the “wager”?

 

[grannymh]

I’m sorry, Pascal, unless you know otherwise, believedin God, eh? That’s what rankles me about faithers: the unwarented exchange of “know” for “believe.” Yes, from the inside you kacn “know” you religion as a paradigm or construct, but funda-mentally it is premised on faith. Faith is a grown up word for “let’s act as if…” It may be utterly sincere and even feel profound. But it is a beleif, not knowledge. It is “about.” It assumes that an ancient “treasure map” is the territory itself.

I understand your point about an unwarranted exchange of know for believe; nonetheless, in ordinary folk, know and believe can be considered twins. The difficulty with “knowing” is understanding if knowing is based on objective or subjective reasoning or on the more common use of both objective and subjective reasoning.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Yes, this is an important point. Sorry, I was going to get back to you and allowed myself to get distracted on with other things. I’ve several irons in the fire here and only have had time for brief replies. I haven’t forgotten.

RF

 

[Betterave]

I’ve invited you to come into my yard to play, and you are scared to step through the gate.

Well I know that I, for one, am scared to come into your yard to play.

(The problem is, I don’t think your anti-intellectual game is worth playing - it is dishonest humbuggery which floats along on a cloud of conceited rhetoric but refuses to give any answers when that rhetoric is called into question - at least that seems to have been your game with me.)

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Well I know that I, for one, am scared to come into your yard to play.

I don’t blame you at all. Wise choice. As one man said, “The search for Reality is the most dangerous undertaking; it will destroy your world.” Of course he was referring to the world of consensus agreement and self verifying stories we tell ourselves to keep safe from the Unknown, or from Love. All the rest of what you blurbled just means you don’t know what I’m talking about and don’t want to. That means that since you can’t say what it is I’m saying, you are not qualified to pass judgment, right? That’s fine, but it doesn’t necessarily make me wrong. After all, I’m the one who offered the explanation that was sought. You just don’t like that I’m making it on my own terms of respect for what I have to offer.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t blame you at all. Wise choice. As one man said, “The search for Reality is the most dangerous undertaking; it will destroy your world.” .

On the other hand,
as one granny said:
The search for Reality is the most wonderful, amazing undertaking ever. It will lift one beyond the restrictions of this life.