Pascal's Wager Argument

[Charlemagne_II]

jon

*Dawkins also debates the middle column of Pascal’s Wager, in that Dawkins believes a “better, fuller life” in the here and now outweighs the “small chance” of a potentially infinite gain. *

Which only demonstrates once again, as if it needed demonstrating, that Dawkins is not all that rational as a philosopher. How can you put your interests in time before your interests in eternity?

granny

The one thing about the wager which I have learned by experience is that for some of us, living as though God exists carries a high price tag.

As do most things carry a high price tag that are really worth having. Ask anyone in history from Socrates through Thomas Jefferson to Martin Luther King. The easy path is well trod … wide is the gate … etc. etc.

 

[Pieman333272]

Although not an atheist I was alluding to Dawkin’s rebuttal with the architect - If you appreciate the building, the architect is irrelevant. You are wasting time that you could be using to appreciate the building.

Funny how Dawkins contradicts himself - he hates religion because it makes people “satisfied without knowing” while he does all in his power to stop people from caring about whether or not the universe was designed and if so, by who or what. Does he only want knowledge which lets him keep his weak-minded position?

 

[grannymh]

jon

*Dawkins also debates the middle column of Pascal’s Wager, in that Dawkins believes a “better, fuller life” in the here and now outweighs the “small chance” of a potentially infinite gain. *

Which only demonstrates once again, as if it needed demonstrating, that Dawkins is not all that rational as a philosopher. How can you put your interests in time before your interests in eternity?

granny

The one thing about the wager which I have learned by experience is that for some of us, living as though God exists carries a high price tag.

As do most things carry a high price tag that are really worth having. Ask anyone in history from Socrates through Thomas Jefferson to Martin Luther King. The easy path is well trod … wide is the gate … etc. etc.

Have you considered that seeking God and His will and then being able to carry out His will is not part of the wager–as far as I can tell?

 

[kbachler]

kbachler

Today, the concept of objective reasoning is considered only within the context that it is ACTUALLY subjective, and when a preponderance of evidence and agreement occurs,* we sometimes refer to it as objective, although we know it is really not.***

Then what you have just said is not really objective?

Please watch your quotes… Thanks!

The point is that all knowledge has a tacit component. There is always fuzziness. The traditional, “lay” concept of objective, which dates back at least to Newton, is incorrect and doesn’t exist. The “most objective” we can get is tacit agreement of subjective information.

That’s the point.

kbachler:

It is your privilege to dodge the question. But not considering it leaves you at least 100 years behind philosophically.

In what sense is anyone 100 years behind philosophically?
Thomas Jefferson lived 200 years ago. Is his political philosophy today 200 years behind philosophically?

No. But if someone had examined his philosophy, shown it was incorrect, and then developed a provable improvement, then the Jeffersonian philosophy would be 200 years out of date.

Science had to redefine what it means “to know” following the discovery - and proofs of - general relativity and and quantum electrodynamics. In the everyday world, the subtle differences in knowing make little if any difference (just like we can routinely substitute Newtonian physics for Relativity and QED in the day-to-day world) but when dealing with the very large or very small, or the very fast, etc., then these subtleties in what it means “to know” can be important.

 

[grannymh]

The point is that all knowledge has a tacit component. There is always fuzziness. The traditional, “lay” concept of objective, which dates back at least to Newton, is incorrect and doesn’t exist. The “most objective” we can get is tacit agreement of subjective information.

Yuk!


I would explain, but my subjective information about the “wager” would be off topic.

 

[JDaniel]

Please watch your quotes… Thanks!

The point is that all knowledge has a tacit component. There is always fuzziness. The traditional, “lay” concept of objective, which dates back at least to Newton, is incorrect and doesn’t exist. The “most objective” we can get is tacit agreement of subjective information.

Pretty close, KB. From the Oxford Dictionary:

Origin:
early 17th century: from medieval Latin objectivus, from objectum (see object)
However, we must not overlook the root word’s origin: Origin:
late Middle English: from medieval Latin objectum ‘thing presented to the mind’

The Latin, objectum, means literally, to strike against e.g., our senses. So, it pre-dates Newton.

Science had to redefine what it means “to know” following the discovery - and proofs of - general relativity and and quantum electrodynamics. In the everyday world, the subtle differences in knowing make little if any difference (just like we can routinely substitute Newtonian physics for Relativity and QED in the day-to-day world) but when dealing with the very large or very small, or the very fast, etc., then these subtleties in what it means “to know” can be important.

Thus, there can only be real knowledge of a ‘scientific’ nature, in your opinion?

God bless,
jd

 

[grannymh]

Thus, there can only be real knowledge of a ‘scientific’ nature, in your opinion?

God bless,
jd

Only if there is a tacit agreement of subjective information. see post 542.

For example, my subjective reasoning says that Pascal’s wager never existed except in another group’s (subjective) reasoning mind.

So why bother?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

granny

*Have you considered that seeking God and His will and then being able to carry out His will is not part of the wager–as far as I can tell? *

Nor did Pascal consider it part of the wager. But the Pensees does not confine itself to the wager. Once the existence of God is affirmed, the particular kind of God we must relate to is addressed. How can God exist without our needing to affirm some kind of relationship with God, and how can such a relationship exist without determining the will of this God?

Essence follows existence. That was the perennial problem formulated by Aquinas and still in play among theologians. Who is God? What does God want from us? How are we to know which God is the true God? By what rational criteria can we narrow down the field of eligible gods to the one true God?

As Pascal says in Thought # 287:

“For God having said in His prophecies (which are undoubtedly prophecies) that in the reign of Jesus Christ He would spread His spirit abroad among nations, and that the youths and maidens and children of the Church would prophesy; it is certain that the Spirit of God is in these and not the others.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kbachler

No. But if someone had examined his philosophy, shown it was incorrect, and then developed a provable improvement, then the Jeffersonian philosophy would be 200 years out of date.

But there is a big difference between outdated philosophy and outdated science, isn’t there?

The current reigning view in philosophy is not necessarily advanced beyond older reigning views in philosophy. This is what Chesterton was talking about when he said that he had grown tired of people who preach that the truth that prevails on Thursday must be superior to the truth that prevailed on Tuesday. Or words to that effect.

The same applies to morality. Because the “dictatorship of moral relativism” is all the rage today, it does not follow that all morals are relative.

But I certainly don’t want to sabotage my own thread, so this is my last word on that subject!

 

[grannymh]

granny

*Have you considered that seeking God and His will and then being able to carry out His will is not part of the wager–as far as I can tell? *

Nor did Pascal consider it part of the wager. But the Pensees does not confine itself to the wager. Once the existence of God is affirmed, the particular kind of God we must relate to is addressed. How can God exist without our needing to affirm some kind of relationship with God, and how can such a relationship exist without determining the will of this God?

Looks like Pascal, and those popular authors who attempt to eliminate objective reasoning, are following in the footsteps of “Adam” who scorned his Creator. Thus, the wager itself is trying to ignore God’s objective existence (existing independently from human’s subjective reasoning).

Take a good look at this sentence about Pascal found in post 546. “Once the existence of God is affirmed, the particular kind of God we must relate to is addressed.”

Does God’s existence really, really depend on the affirmation found in Pascal’s Wager?

Does our subjective thinking (which is often influenced by one’s personal preferences) have the power to really, really determine what particual kind of “god” we want to relate to?
Isn’t this personal (subjective) way of giving a “god” the qualities we appreciate the same way the Greek and Roman gods were produced?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

granny

*Isn’t this personal (subjective) way of giving a “god” the qualities we appreciate the same way the Greek and Roman gods were produced? *

The Greeks and Romans finally came to realize the subjectivity of the gods they had created for themselves. Nor did they have any objective evidence that the gods existed other than that they reflected the desires of their adherents that they should exist.

This is not true of the God of Abraham. The prophecies abundant in the OT and the NT are sufficient proof, as Pascal points out, that Jesus is the fulfillment of these prophecies. There is no comparable “objective” record in any of the other great religions of prophecies being fulfilled, nor even of a God that claims to engage in a personal day-to-day relationship with his people.

Zeus died. So did Apollo. So did Athena and Ares and Poseidon. Isis and Osiris are also gone. They are forgotten except as poetic myths.

Christ alone rose from the dead and continues to animate his people with hope and desire and love. He said the Church would last forever. And so it has; even in a wounded state it prevails over its enemies who want to kill Christ again and make sure he never rises again.
*
Does God’s existence really, really depend on the affirmation found in Pascal’s Wager? *

No, it doesn’t depend on Pascal’s wager. The wager is merely a device intended to show obstinate atheists that their own logic is faulty. If one cares at all about one’s own ultimate interests (no atheist I know is careless about his own interests) it is foolishness to throw away eternity on a bet that eternity does not exist.

 

[kbachler]

Pretty close, KB. From the Oxford Dictionary:

Origin:
early 17th century: from medieval Latin objectivus, from objectum (see object)
However, we must not overlook the root word’s origin: Origin:
late Middle English: from medieval Latin objectum ‘thing presented to the mind’

The Latin, objectum, means literally, to strike against e.g., our senses. So, it pre-dates Newton.

Thus, there can only be real knowledge of a ‘scientific’ nature, in your opinion?

God bless,
jd

No.

EVERYTHING begins with belief (and/or assumptions - include those in “belief”). From belief, additional truths may be reasoned. Thus 2+2 = 4 is a truth, given that we assume certain beliefs about arithmetic, the set of whole numbers, etc.

“Knowing” is what we have as a result of beliefs and applied reason. Knowing can be extended by adding reasoned knowledge, or by finding that the number of assumptions can be reduced. That is, if we start with 10 assumptions (things we believe) and then find that we only need 4 assumptions and that the other six statements that were previously assumptions can be deduced from the 4, then we only need to believe 4 things, and we now KNOW 6 more things.

On a fundamental level, there must be at least certain minimal number of beliefs.

In a sense, all deductions already contain the information that is made apparent by the deduction. (If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be a proof.) Thus, while the following statement is not a proof, I believe it is indicative that God cannot be proven (deduced) from information in the universe, because God is by definition greater than the universe. Thus, the universe cannot contain the information that “is God” and consequently, there is no deduction which reveals God from the information in the universe. God may be “indicated” by the universe, but not proven.

Coming back to your question, “real knowledge” is deduced from belief (including assumptions), and can only be considered “real” within the context of what is believed.

 

[kbachler]

Looks like Pascal, and those popular authors who attempt to eliminate objective reasoning, are following in the footsteps of “Adam” who scorned his Creator. Thus, the wager itself is trying to ignore God’s objective existence (existing independently from human’s subjective reasoning).

Take a good look at this sentence about Pascal found in post 546. “Once the existence of God is affirmed, the particular kind of God we must relate to is addressed.”

Does God’s existence really, really depend on the affirmation found in Pascal’s Wager?

Does our subjective thinking (which is often influenced by one’s personal preferences) have the power to really, really determine what particual kind of “god” we want to relate to?
Isn’t this personal (subjective) way of giving a “god” the qualities we appreciate the same way the Greek and Roman gods were produced?

Pascal’s wager makes the point, grannymh, that we can be indifferent to the actual state of God’s existence, because we have a much greater expected value if we act as though He exists.

God’s existence does not depend on Pascal’s wager. The wager changes the question though. Instead of trying to determine whether God exists, so that we can then determine how we should act, Pascal notes that we do not NEED to determine whether God exists. The upside of living as though He exists is SO GREAT (relative to the cost of living that way), that we should simply live that way, and not be concerned about determining whether or not He exists.

This is the point of the wager.

 

[kbachler]

Does our subjective thinking (which is often influenced by one’s personal preferences) have the power to really, really determine what particual kind of “god” we want to relate to?

Note that our so-called “objective thinking” is also influenced by personal preferences, which is why Polyani argued that all knowledge is tacit.

 

[grannymh]

No.

EVERYTHING begins with belief (and/or assumptions - include those in “belief”). From belief, additional truths may be reasoned. Thus 2+2 = 4 is a truth, given that we assume certain beliefs about arithmetic, the set of whole numbers, etc.

“Knowing” is what we have as a result of beliefs and applied reason. Knowing can be extended by adding reasoned knowledge, or by finding that the number of assumptions can be reduced. That is, if we start with 10 assumptions (things we believe) and then find that we only need 4 assumptions and that the other six statements that were previously assumptions can be deduced from the 4, then we only need to believe 4 things, and we now KNOW 6 more things.

On a fundamental level, there must be at least certain minimal number of beliefs.

In a sense, all deductions already contain the information that is made apparent by the deduction. (If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be a proof.) Thus, while the following statement is not a proof, I believe it is indicative that God cannot be proven (deduced) from information in the universe, because God is by definition greater than the universe. Thus, the universe cannot contain the information that “is God” and consequently, there is no deduction which reveals God from the information in the universe. God may be “indicated” by the universe, but not proven.

Coming back to your question, “real knowledge” is deduced from belief (including assumptions), and can only be considered “real” within the context of what is believed.

Got half way through this post and started wondering if you were referring to the deduction method. .
Now, can you translate what you said into the induction method?

God being “indicated” counts as a demonstration by the use of reason. Physical scientific proof would not necessarily be needed.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[grannymh]

Note that our so-called “objective thinking” is also influenced by personal preferences, which is why Polyani argued that all knowledge is tacit.

The key point is that both objective and subjective methods can lead to the same conclusion. One cannot work backwards and say that because the same conclusion was reached, both methods are interchangeable.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kbachler
*
Note that our so-called “objective thinking” is also influenced by personal preferences, which is why Polyani argued that all knowledge is tacit. *

Note that our atheists also believe they have some kind of objective truth when they repudiate God. They don’t actually have anything objective, but rather the mere wish (hope) that God does not exist. In that sense only, subjectivity trumps objectivity both for the theist and the atheist. But as Pascal notes, our eternal interest trumps everything!

And hope springs eternal!

 

[kbachler]

Got half way through this post and started wondering if you were referring to the deduction method. .
Now, can you translate what you said into the induction method?

God being “indicated” counts as a demonstration by the use of reason. Physical scientific proof would not necessarily be needed.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

Except for mathematical induction (which because of the well-defined set of rules of mathematics allows something to be definitely known), induction does not lead to knowing. Induction leads to a “likelihood that the conclusion is true, if the premises are true” rather than deduction where “the conclusions ARE true, if the premises are true.”

Hence, INDUCTION, does not need to knowing, it leads to BELIEF. There are indicators for the belief, but it is still belief. The arguments are not ironclad.

 

[kbachler]

kbachler

No. But if someone had examined his philosophy, shown it was incorrect, and then developed a provable improvement, then the Jeffersonian philosophy would be 200 years out of date.

But there is a big difference between outdated philosophy and outdated science, isn’t there?

The current reigning view in philosophy is not necessarily advanced beyond older reigning views in philosophy. This is what Chesterton was talking about when he said that he had grown tired of people who preach that the truth that prevails on Thursday must be superior to the truth that prevailed on Tuesday. Or words to that effect.

The same applies to morality. Because the “dictatorship of moral relativism” is all the rage today, it does not follow that all morals are relative.

But I certainly don’t want to sabotage my own thread, so this is my last word on that subject!

To the extent that we develop new philosophy as a response to providing a better description of reality, then the truth that prevails on Thursday is better than the truth that prevails on Tuesday. We know to day that Newton’s “classical mechanics” philosophy actually does not work - except that, under certain circumstances, it is reasonably close to what really happens. One key is that it does not work with things that are infinitely large or infinitely small. Therefore, in thinking about God (a concept which embodies several infinities) one should immediately question whether a “classical, Newtonian approach” would make any sense on its face. A key in dealing with relativity to some degree and with quantum electrodynamics to a greater degree, is that “normal logic” doesn’t quite work. A new way of thinking is just as important.

Prior to 1900 people might ask “Is light a wave or a particle?” and expect you to choose one or the other. Today one might say “Light is a wave or a particle” and be quiet comfortable with the description - or even go so far to coin a term like “wavicle”.

 

[jonfawkes]

This is not true of the God of Abraham. The prophecies abundant in the OT and the NT are sufficient proof, as Pascal points out, that Jesus is the fulfillment of these prophecies.

Not according to the Jews.