Pascal's Wager Argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is false because it says there are only 2 options “He is or He is not” - obviously there is at least a third - not to choose. Pascal even addresses it - poorly - but he acknowledges it is a choice but dismisses it.

He just dismisses it out of hand - which isn’t a compelling reason nor a valid one.
If:
A: God exist
or
B: God does not exist (not A)

This is a specific example of the law of non-contradiction.

As such, it cannot be a false dicotomy. Your inability to choose does not create another option. It just puts you in position to be jugded thusly:
Rev.3:16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.
 
Another *bon mot *from Pascal’s Pensees.

“In order to make man happy religion must show him that there is a God; that we are bound to love Him; that our true happiness lies in being in Him, and that our only sorrow is to be separated from Him.”

To sit on a fence is to be separated from God. In the end, there is no substantive difference between the atheist and the agnostic. Both are against God. There are only two choices: to be for God or to be against God. It is illusory to suppose that by sitting on a fence you are not against God.

Matthew 12:30 “He who is not with me is against me …”

Here Christ, like Pascal, dismisses any third option.
 
That does not make the dilemma “He is or He is not” a false dilemma. You mean to claim that “choose to believe that He is or choose to believe that He is not” is a false dilemma (which it may or may not be).

But *you *are just dismissing out of hand the possibility that Pascal has a good reason for posing the dilemma the way he did - aren’t you? So we have these options:
  1. Choose to believe that He is.
  2. Choose to believe that He is not.
  3. Choose not to believe either 1 or 2.
The question, then, is whether 3 represents a genuine third option. Are you sure that it does?
Well there are more than these 3 options when it comes to faith. Agnosticism is just one that is easily seen, as even Pascal points it out. There is a deist approach, that even though He exists he doesn’t care if we acknowledge him. Or a Hindu approach that everything is Brahman. Or that God cares more for works than belief. Or that God would reward skepticism and use of intellect and punish toadyism. Etc Etc Etc

Since we can’t know the mind of God, it is all speculation on our part. But if the bet to be made is Catholicism vs Atheism, Agnosticism also has to be a choice. It’s choosing not to bet. Being neutral doesn’t win any friends in either camp, but isn’t a heaven barring offense.

Char II likes to quote Matt 12:30, but there is also Matt 12:32 Jesus says the only unforgivable offense is blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Saying you are unsure is neither pro or against. Atheism does denounce the Holy Spirit and would be unforgivable.

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 12:32[/BIBLEDRB]
 
jonfawkes

**“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:36-40). **

*Char II likes to quote Matt 12:30, but there is also Matt 12:32 Jesus says the only unforgivable offense is blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Saying you are unsure is neither pro or against. Atheism does denounce the Holy Spirit and would be unforgivable. *

The first and greatest commandment trumps all other Commandments. It say to adore God. Since an agnostic does not adore God, the agnostic has violated the first and great commandment. It is a forgivable offense, but only if one repents and obeys God. You cannot do that if you say you don’t know if there is a God.

Have you ever known an agnostic who had any kind of relationship with God? Did he love God? How did he prove it? By saying he didn’t know if there was a God?
 
jonfawkes

**“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:36-40). **

*Char II likes to quote Matt 12:30, but there is also Matt 12:32 Jesus says the only unforgivable offense is blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Saying you are unsure is neither pro or against. Atheism does denounce the Holy Spirit and would be unforgivable. *

The first and greatest commandment trumps all other Commandments. It say to adore God. Since an agnostic does not adore God, the agnostic has violated the first and great commandment. It is a forgivable offense, but only if one repents and obeys God. You cannot do that if you say you don’t know if there is a God.

Have you ever known an agnostic who had any kind of relationship with God? Did he love God? How did he prove it? By saying he didn’t know if there was a God?
The agnostics (generally) I know do follow the second of the commandments “Love your neighbor as yourself.” as do most other religions albeit worded differently. I see no better way to Love God than to love your neighbor. Especially if you can’t believe one way or the other. Eventually we’ll all find out. 😃

As Hillel the Elder said (prior to Jesus’ statement)
That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study it.
Same God, same sentiment. So if we make an effort to get along, and be compassionate, seems like we are doing ok.
 
jonfawkes

*Same God, same sentiment. So if we make an effort to get along, and be compassionate, seems like we are doing ok. *

So there is really no substantive difference between being an agnostic and being a Christian so long as we get along? The agnostic is allowed to disobey the first commandment as long as he obeys the second one?

This may be what it **seems **like to you. Are all your beliefs based on what seems to be true to you, or are they based on actual scriptural commandments and the authority of the Church.
 
Here is Peter Kreeft’s take on Pascal’s Wager. An easy read.

peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm
It fails for me because - the reason we must choose is death- it makes no quantitaive judgement on not choosing. Basically you must choose because you’ll die someday - still doesn’t make it a bad choice- one can still stand before God and say " I did my best - I didn’t know who to believe"

The common thread in most religions is the golden rule - that’s where our bases are truely covered 🙂
 
Here is another great quote from Pascal:

“But what can a man do? … He wants to be great, he sees himself small; he wants to be happy, he sees himself wretched; he want to be perfect, he sees himself full of imperfecctions; he wants to be the object of men’s love and esteem, and he sees his faults deserve only their aversion and their scorn… He conceives a mortal hatred for this truth that reproves him and convinces him of his faults.”

This is a profound truth that underlies much rejection of God from Adam and Eve to every living soul. The desire to be perfect, and the failure to be perfect, are at war within the atheist and the agnostic as they are at war within us all. We all know we are less than we could be, as Adam and Eve proved right from the start when they doubted that they could not be as godly as God and ate the fruit to prove it. So to cancel out the obligation to be perfect, the agnostic and the atheist must cancel out God as the one who calls us to be perfect. Now an interesting reversal follows. The ego becomes the perfect one … as perfect as it gets, no thanks to God. We all become tiny gods who wield the power of subjectivity over our own moral realms. It comes as no surprise to learn that most atheists are subjectivists and moral relativists. They have made themselves the standard currency for all morality, payable on demand.
 
Here is another great quote from Pascal:

“But what can a man do? … He wants to be great, he sees himself small; he wants to be happy, he sees himself wretched; he want to be perfect, he sees himself full of imperfecctions; he wants to be the object of men’s love and esteem, and he sees his faults deserve only their aversion and their scorn… He conceives a mortal hatred for this truth that reproves him and convinces him of his faults.”

This is a profound truth that underlies much rejection of God from Adam and Eve to every living soul. The desire to be perfect, and the failure to be perfect, are at war within the atheist and the agnostic as they are at war within us all. We all know we are less than we could be, as Adam and Eve proved right from the start when they doubted that they could not be as godly as God and ate the fruit to prove it. So to cancel out the obligation to be perfect, the agnostic and the atheist must cancel out God as the one who calls us to be perfect. Now an interesting reversal follows. The ego becomes the perfect one … as perfect as it gets, no thanks to God. We all become tiny gods who wield the power of subjectivity over our own moral realms. It comes as no surprise to learn that most atheists are subjectivists and moral relativists. They have made themselves the standard currency for all morality, payable on demand.
This is an odd argument - I don’t know anyone, Catholics or Humanists, that claims humans can be perfect or are perfect. We are finite, limited beings. “We’re only Human”

The Catholic doctrine of original sin is much devout statement of our flawed nature than any other I’ve heard. We’re flawed (not perfect) from conception. Only God is perfect.🤷

You’re still lumping agnostics and atheism together - it’s a strawman at best.
 
jonfawkes

Same God, same sentiment. So if we make an effort to get along, and be compassionate, seems like we are doing ok.

So there is really no substantive difference between being an agnostic and being a Christian so long as we get along? The agnostic is allowed to disobey the first commandment as long as he obeys the second one?

This may be what it **seems **like to you. Are all your beliefs based on what seems to be true to you, or are they based on actual scriptural commandments and the authority of the Church.
The parable of the prodigal son seems to suggest that.
 
jonfawkes

*You’re still lumping agnostics and atheism together - it’s a strawman at best. *

You’re still refusing to acknowledge that neither agnostics nor atheists love God.

They both violate the first and great commandment.

“In order to love our neighbor we must see that God is the cause of our love. How can we have a pure love for our neighbor if we do not love him in God? And you cannot love your neighbor unless you love God.” Saint Bernard of Clairvaux
 
jonfawkes

*You’re still lumping agnostics and atheism together - it’s a strawman at best. *

You’re still refusing to acknowledge that neither agnostics nor atheists love God.

They both violate the first and great commandment.

“In order to love our neighbor we must see that God is the cause of our love. How can we have a pure love for our neighbor if we do not love him in God? And you cannot love your neighbor unless you love God.” Saint Bernard of Clairvaux
You are stating there is no difference between them - I can point to an atheist denies God and Agnostic doesn’t. The door is still open to the Agnostic. He can still choose, even after death.

Again the common thread in most religions and ethical philosophies is the golden rule. Even atheistic Buddhism has compassion at the forefront.
 
I think I’d give agnostics an easier ride than you lot! Some agnostics kinda like God, when they think there might be one, afterall…

Funny, but the practical application of the term doesn’t really reflect the technical meaning at all. After all, none of us really believe we know, do we? Making us all, technically speaking, agnostic.

But of course, the term in practice refers to not choosing to not believe one way or eth other… there’s probably a more correct term for that. Or is it not to act on the basis of any particular form of understanding of reality? Actually, maybe that
 
You are stating there is no difference between them - I can point to an atheist denies God and Agnostic doesn’t. The door is still open to the Agnostic. He can still choose, even after death.
Yet, neither can, nor will worship God, you they don’t know can or denies exists, thereby disobeying the first commandment.
Again the common thread in most religions and ethical philosophies is the golden rule. Even atheistic Buddhism has compassion at the forefront.
With out God, this rule is just about self serving preservation.
 
Yet, neither can, nor will worship God, you they don’t know can or denies exists, thereby disobeying the first commandment.

With out God, this rule is just about self serving preservation.
Your first statement is a bit convoluted - but I’ll assume that you are saying that neither atheists nor agnostics worship God. True but the agnostic isn’t denying God either.

I don’t think compassion can be solely self serving but it can be partially, especially if you are compassionate solely to keep from getting in trouble with God.

Even so, neither of these are “deal breakers” in the eyes of Jesus. Neither will bar you from Heaven. It really doesn’t affect the outcome of the wager, so… 🤷
 
Even so, neither of these are “deal breakers” in the eyes of Jesus. Neither will bar you from Heaven. It really doesn’t affect the outcome of the wager, so…

Is it presumptuous of you to say that your compassion is greater than the compassion of Jesus? And to substitute your own eyes for the eyes of Jesus?

“He who is not with me is against me.” Matthew (Is the agnostic with Jesus?

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my
heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33 Does the agnostic acknowledge Jesus?

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16 Does the agnostic accept baptism?
 
You are stating there is no difference between them - I can point to an atheist denies God and Agnostic doesn’t. The door is still open to the Agnostic. He can still choose, even after death.

Again the common thread in most religions and ethical philosophies is the golden rule. Even atheistic Buddhism has compassion at the forefront.
But there is such a thing as an end point in time, for the Western religious traditions. We are not talking here about Eastern religions. Is it necessary to remind you, a Catholic, that we are not to follow Eastern religions? They have a radically different view of personhood, and in particular of God’s personhood. Some Eastern faiths believe in reincarnation. Catholics believe you have one earthly life and you are not recycled.

For the rest of your comments, there are two different phenomena being discussed: (1) belief and (2) cumulative deeds of one’s life.

On the first, one has to distinguish between sincerely tentative skepticism, given lack of the gift of faith and no environment in which to nurture that, and willful rejection despite very different opportunities. We are taught that God considers the individual’s opportunity and graces afforded to him, or the lack of either, as well as (obviously) the individual’s ability to discern and accept, relative to intellectual and emotional capacity.

On the second, both the Particular Judgment and the General Judgment will involve everyone, regardless of faith affiliation or lack thereof. Thus, charitable Buddhists and honest, generous Agnostics would undoubtedly be welcomed into God’s friendship more quickly than Christian murderers. Just understand that there is no “choice” beyond death. (That is the problem with your above post.) If the person is judged to be worthy of God’s friendship but needs further purgation (which most saved souls will need), that soul, regardless of faith affiliation, will eventually realize the Beatific Vision after that purgation and (which in the case of the Agnostic would include illumination, confirmation of God’s reality).

None of us is in a position to foresee either our own, or anyone else’s Particular Judgment, despite how we believe we have lived and/or others have lived. We live in Hope, as believers, but not Presumption. Nevertheless, the practical reality is that most people find it difficult to stay perpetually moral and ethical without a guiding faith tradition than with. This is especially true when life crises or extraordinary temptations arise. There are of course good-hearted atheists and agnostics; it is just harder to resist personal temptation and to remain steadily moral without a framework of some kind; it is not impossible. I have no doubt that there are souls in heaven (and certainly in purgatory) who affirmed no religious faith during their lives.

From CAF’s Ask An Apologist:
**Why is repentance after death “too late”? **
Why do you assume that a man who spent a lifetime denying God exists would suddenly want to be with God should he be confronted by God immediately after death? Why do you assume that the transgression of deliberately denying the existence of the infinite, eternal God is merely a finite, temporal transgression?
Something to keep in mind is the nature of choice. Angels, because they are pure spirit, made one eternal choice either for or against God. Because they do not have material bodies subject to the limitations of change, their choice was eternal and irrevocable. Human beings, because they have bodies, can change over the course of their lifetimes; but radical, life-altering change from the shaping of a lifetime of choices is as rare as a deathbed conversion precisely because our choices shape us into who we are. At death, that lifetime of shaping through the choices we make becomes as permanent and irrevocable as the one eternal choice made by the angels.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=293626

Also see this from Our Sunday Visitor:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church succinctly sums up that teaching: “Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death” (No. 1022). That retribution is the ultimate verdict on a life, the end results of all its merits and its deserts.
Such a verdict, the Catechism goes on to say, is given “in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven – through a purification or immediately – or immediate and everlasting damnation” (No. 1022).
In short: Immediately after death comes an individual (“particular”) judgment by God. The souls of those who died in friendship with Him either go to heaven or begin the purifying process (purgatory) that ultimately leads to heaven. Those who died without being in friendship with God go to hell.
osv.com/TCANav/TCAQuestionoftheDay/Jan24282011/tabid/8275/Default.aspx
 
Sorry. Let me paste the rest of the question posed to the CAF Apologist, which I referenced above:
Suppose a man who leads a life based on empirical observation (as it is becoming a dominant philosophy today) denies the existence of God simply because God is invisible; he does not see God, so how is he to know God exists? This man feels he cannot have a relationship with something with whom he cannot physically interact. This man dies and then sees God. Of course this man would then want to go to God. Why does God not allow this to occur if God is good? We see many such men today, and sacred Scripture tells us that no one goes to the Father unless the Father wills it – so this man had no relationship with God because God made it so. How does this idea reconcile with God’s goodness?
An eternal punishment for a finite, temporal transgression does not seem just. If you were to look at our existence on a timeline, our lives on earth would not even show up as a speck on the time line when compared with eternity. Why does what happens in less than the blink of an eye have everlasting consequences?
 
Again, according to Jesus the only deal breaker is blaspheming the holy spirit.

Agnostics aren’t blaspheming the Holy Spirit. They haven’t closed the door to heaven to themselves.

Faith comes through grace, which is a gift from God. If one is not blessed with faith, perhaps that is their cross to bear.

If they live a life of compassion even without faith, to love without promise of heavenly reward, seems to be lauded rather than condemned.

Surely can’t be counted against them. Not by a loving God. They lived the love, they weren’t simply reactionary to possible punishment.

The good Samaritan, The Prodigal son both point to this. We are judged by our acts, and we are always welcome home. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top