Pascal's Wager Argument

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes
*
HUH! - You are the one that wanted to discuss the wager and started a thread on the wager. You are faulting me for staying on topic. *

I am faulting you for myopia.

If you wanted to discuss the The Pensées as a whole why did you call your thread “Pascal’s Wager Argument?” Which is contained in Sec III paragraph 233.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Candide

*The risk reward ratio of any given scenario is irrelevant if we have no reason to believe that the scenario is valid. This is i suspect why the wager seems to make sense for most theists but not for most atheists. Theists believe they have those reasons, atheists do not.

Would be interested to hear other’s views. Thanks *

What valid reason does the atheist have to believe that there is no God? Isn’t he also betting without proof?

The first sin consisted of the serpent persuading Eve that she didn’t need God because she could become God.

That is the atheist line today. We, not God, are supreme.

 

[jonfawkes]

Candide

The risk reward ratio of any given scenario is irrelevant if we have no reason to believe that the scenario is valid. This is i suspect why the wager seems to make sense for most theists but not for most atheists. Theists believe they have those reasons, atheists do not.

Would be interested to hear other’s views. Thanks

What valid reason does the atheist have to believe that there is no God? Isn’t he also betting without proof?

The first sin consisted of the serpent persuading Eve that she didn’t need God because she could become God.

That is the atheist line today. We, not God, are supreme.

You know that’s not how logic works right? - You can’t prove a negative. It is the one making the assertion (God exists) that has the burden of proof. The atheist doesn’t have to prove anything but rather find the evidence compelling or not.

There are many classic examples - like Russel’s teapot

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Pascal’s wager was in response to classical proofs of God. He acknowledged this in (again) paragraph 233 -

Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for their belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give a reason? They declare, in expounding it to the world, that it is a foolishness, stultitiam; * and then you complain that they do not prove it! If they proved it, they would not keep their word; it is in lacking proofs that they are not lacking in sense. “Yes, but although this excuses those who offer it as such and takes away from them the blame of putting it forward without reason, it does not excuse those who receive it.”*

The wager stems from that - even if it’s not provable, it is a better bet to believe in God according to Pascal because the rewards are infinite as well as the losses.

 

[Candide_West]

Thanks for your reply Charlemagne.

I’m not sure that i’m following though, are you saying we should believe everything unless we have a specific reason not to? After all there are many things which we do not believe which we have no specific reasons not to believe. The chap sneaking up behind me with a knife is one example. I’ve got no reason to believe that he isn’t there. For that matter I guess there are an infinite number of things which I do not believe (and you don’t believe for that matter) which we have no specific reason not to believe. The vast majority of them will never even cross our minds.

This is why from my point of view we only believe things which we have a reason to believe, rather than operating a process of elimination using the reasons not to believe.

As for the atheist “line”, seems like an odd one. I’ve not heard any atheists saying we are supreme. For that matter, to the best that i’m aware there isn’t an atheist line. After all atheism isn’t an organisation or even a set of views. It’s just the absence of something.

What are your views on the value of risk / reward ratios without any reason to believe in the validity of the premise?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

*You know that’s not how logic works right? - You can’t prove a negative. It is the one making the assertion (God exists) that has the burden of proof. The atheist doesn’t have to prove anything but rather find the evidence compelling or not. *

Pascal has already conceded that the evidence for God is not compelling. But he also insists there is no compelling evidence against God. What hangs in the balance is not compelling evidence, but rather the fate of our immortal souls. Either you worry about the fate of your soul or you don’t.

When you are driving around an S curve on a mountain, you may have no compelling evidence that a car is coming from the other direction. Nor do you have compelling evidence that a car is not coming. But you take no chances. You act as if there is a car around the corner speeding at you. Only a fool would do otherwise.

Pascal says you should also act as if there is a God coming at you. And as the Scriptures say, “The fool in his heart says there is no God.”

Do you agree with that?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Candide

As for the atheist “line”, seems like an odd one. I’ve not heard any atheists saying we are supreme.

What I mean is that the atheist substitutes his own will for God’s, and therefore makes his own will supreme … or thinks he does.

Candide

The chap sneaking up behind me with a knife is one example. I’ve got no reason to believe that he isn’t there.

See my counter example of the S curve in my previous post.

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes

*You know that’s not how logic works right? - You can’t prove a negative. It is the one making the assertion (God exists) that has the burden of proof. The atheist doesn’t have to prove anything but rather find the evidence compelling or not. *

Pascal has already conceded that the evidence for God is not compelling. But he also insists there is no compelling evidence against God. What hangs in the balance is not compelling evidence, but rather the fate of our immortal souls. Either you worry about the fate of your soul or you don’t.

When you are driving around an S curve on a mountain, you may have no compelling evidence that a car is coming from the other direction. Nor do you have compelling evidence that a car is not coming. But you take no chances. You act as if there is a car around the corner speeding at you. Only a fool would do otherwise.

Pascal says you should also act as if there is a God coming at you. And as the Scriptures say, “The fool in his heart says there is no God.”

Do you agree with that?

No. As a driver I have seen other cars on the road. I have had them pass me in the other direction. I am aware of the possible danger before I ever get on the mountain road based on past experience and similar experiences. Basic road safety applies no matter what road I’m on.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

*No. As a driver I have seen other cars on the road. I have had them pass me in the other direction. I am aware of the possible danger before I ever get on the mountain road based on past experience and similar experiences. Basic road safety applies no matter what road I’m on. *

Except on the road to God?

 

[Candide_West]

“What I mean is that the atheist substitutes his own will for God’s, and therefore makes his own will supreme … or thinks he does.”

Ok, I see that as a rather odd way to put it. I would say that an atheist sees themselves as possessing free will and therefore being entirely responsible for their own actions (good and bad). But I guess that’s just semantics really, it’s rather off point anyway.

As for your mountain road example, I have good reason to expect cars to be coming the other way, I am after all on a road. And know from regular previous experience that they are often used by others with various degrees of skill. Therefore I don’t need specific evidence about a car coming to know that it is likely. Equally if I’d had dozens of people sneak up behind me to try to stab me in the past I’d be much more justified in turning around, just in case.

However, in these examples we are introducing evidence for the situation, rather than just the risk / reward ratio which the wager claims is enough. This is my contention, that without some reasons to believe the scenario is true, the risk / reward ratio of the scenario is irrelevant.

Take care

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Candide

As for your mountain road example, I have good reason to expect cars to be coming the other way, I am after all on a road. And know from regular previous experience that they are often used by others with various degrees of skill.

But you don’t know for sure that you are not on a road to God. The roads you are talking about are physical. The roads I am talking about are spiritual. You can choose to believe that you have no spirit and that you are not on a spiritual road, but you cannot prove that you are not on a spiritual road. Do you want to take the same risk with respect to the spirit that you would never take with respect to the S curve?

However, in these examples we are introducing evidence for the situation, rather than just the risk / reward ratio which the wager claims is enough. This is my contention, that without some reasons to believe the scenario is true, the risk / reward ratio of the scenario is irrelevant.

Again, what reasons do you have to believe that the scenario is false?

As Pascal explains elsewhere in the Pensees, it is will that rules the intellect. In other words, hope is springs eternal. It is only by willing to believe it is true, that we can come to discover that it is true. It is only by willing to believe it is false, that we cannot find God.

Which do you prefer to find … a universe with God, or one without God?

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes

*No. As a driver I have seen other cars on the road. I have had them pass me in the other direction. I am aware of the possible danger before I ever get on the mountain road based on past experience and similar experiences. Basic road safety applies no matter what road I’m on. *

Except on the road to God?

If I had no experience with other obstacles, say I’ve only driven on the salt flats, and you told me to watch out for obstacles, I’d look at you like you were crazy. “Look, there’s nothing here, what am I possibly going to hit.” I have no reference for it. If I driven in the “real” world, on roads, I have encountered other obstacles, so when you tell me look out for another, I have a reference for it. An athesist has never met God and has no reference for Him.

Look out for blue bouncing shablumbumblablas.

 

[Candide_West]

But you don’t know for sure that you are not on a road to God. The roads you are talking about are physical. The roads I am talking about are spiritual. You can choose to believe that you have no spirit and that you are not on a spiritual road, but you cannot prove that you are not on a spiritual road. Do you want to take the same risk with respect to the spirit that you would never take with respect to the S curve?

Again, what reasons do you have to believe that the scenario is false?

I don’t have any reasons to believe that the scenario is false, just like the chap sneaking up behind me and all the other scenarios I could construct with a similar risk / reward ratio. Not having any reasons to disbelieve a scenario is (to me at least) not a reason to believe in it. As i said before I believe things where I have reasons to, not by a process of elimination from things i have reasons not to believe.

As Pascal explains elsewhere in the Pensees, it is will that rules the intellect. In other words, hope is springs eternal. It is only by willing to believe it is true, that we can come to discover that it is true. It is only by willing to believe it is false, that we cannot find God.

Which do you prefer to find … a universe with God, or one without God?

In truth I would personally prefer a universe with God, especially the christian God. It’d be fantastic. But wanting something to be true do not make it true, nor do they have any affect on whether I believe something.

Again Pascal was trying to sell the risk / reward without the need for reference to whether it is likely to be true. but without reason to believe if it is true then that argument is irrelevant.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes
*
An athesist has never met God and has no reference for Him. *

Not only has every atheist met God. Every atheist is fleeing from God.

As a Catholic, you know this is true, right? Even if the atheist says he doesn’t know it.

What do you think the atheists in this forum are doing? They are on the road to God, but they are fleeing in the opposite direction. What other reason would they have for being here?

They are running down the up escalator! :yup:

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes
*
An athesist has never met God and has no reference for Him. *

Not only has every atheist met God. Every atheist is fleeing from God.

As a Catholic, you know this is true, right? Even if the atheist says he doesn’t know it.

What do you think the atheists in this forum are doing? They are on the road to God, but they are fleeing in the opposite direction. What other reason would they have for being here?

They are running down the up escalator! :yup:

No. Most atheists I’ve met aren’t fleeing from God, but rather pursuing him ( the idea of him) , and trying to drive Him out like a superstition.

Reason and faith aren’t good bedfellows. Each are trying to seduce the other.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Candide

*In truth I would personally prefer a universe with God, especially the christian God. It’d be fantastic. But wanting something to be true do not make it true, nor do they have any affect on whether I believe something. *

In truth, I think your first sentence is fibbing me!

Wanting something to be true does not make it true. But wanting something to be true disposes us to see that it is truthful** if it is true**.

We cannot know God in the sense that the atheist would expect to know God. We can know Him with our heart, not with our head. As Pascal says elsewhere in Pensees, the heart has reasons that reason knows nothing of. He will later bring out in Pensees that the human heart needs not to know God in the cerebral sense, but to love God as a Person. This kind of love is only possible by first believing that it is possible, and then traveling down the road of spiritual growth. Then possibility becomes conviction as one grows closer and closer to God.

One can never explain this adequately to an atheist, because he is stuck on the road to material things only.

He has to either bet with Pascal or bet there is no afterlife. Then he has to explain to himself why he bets on no afterlife … if he has the courage.

I have to go out and will not be back for several hours.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

No. Most atheists I’ve met aren’t fleeing from God, but rather pursuing him ( the idea of him) , and trying to drive Him out like a superstition.

Why are they trying to do that?

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes

No. Most atheists I’ve met aren’t fleeing from God, but rather pursuing him ( the idea of him) , and trying to drive Him out like a superstition.

Why are they trying to do that?

Some hold the belief like Hitchens, that " god is not great" and is detrimental to us as a species. Others I don’t know, maybe just a bad experience with religion. Regardless none I’ve met fear or are fleeing God. They rather like berating theists and by extension God.

 

[Candide_West]

In truth, I think your first sentence is fibbing me!

Probably rather less than you think. I grew up believing in God and found the belief hugely conforting. Now I lack that comfort blanket and the world is a much scarier place, especially the thought of death. Not that it hasn’t come with benefits, the combination of freedom and absolute responsibility for ones own actions bear their own rewards. But I can’t deny that there is a strong attraction to the softer comforts of religious faith.

Wanting something to be true does not make it true. But wanting something to be true disposes us to see that it is truthful** if it is true**.

Agreed. It can also pre-dispose us to see it as true even if it is not.

He has to either bet with Pascal or bet there is no afterlife. Then he has to explain to himself why he bets on no afterlife … if he has the courage.

Indeed it is difficult thinking about death, it certainly takes courage to be an honest atheist. However, to come back to the terms of the wager, they don’t offer any compelling reason to believe or try to believe any more than my potential stabber leads me to spin in circles. You have to already believe in order for the wager to work to be more than speculation and as such is not going to be effective on those who don’t have faith.

 

[JDaniel]

Maybe from Pascal

Pretend, then maybe you might believe it.

Jon:

Pascal is talking about habitual grace, which is simply sanctifying grace, the notion of which he knew quite well. Here he is suggesting that if one permits one’s self the luxury, so to speak, of participating in habitual rituals, even before one begins, said grace is a pure gift of God, which one would not receive were it not for the supernatural reality that one is predestined, although one cannot truly know that one is predestined. So, the perseverance of the ritual habit only brings such a soul closer to friendship with God. And, that is what is needed for salvation.

Interestingly, the opposite is also true, that without consenting to such will-to-rituals, following upon the gift of sanctifying grace, one will probably be doomed. Although such a soul would probably not even receive the will to instantiate such habits. I am not judging here; I am simply saying that God will not waste His free gifts of grace on those souls that will not infallibly use them in the future.

I think that if one finds the will to instantiate such habits - for whatever seemed to be the reason - one ought to proceed forward with them.

God bless,
jd

 

[jonfawkes]

Jon:

Pascal is talking about habitual grace, which is simply sanctifying grace, the notion of which he knew quite well. Here he is suggesting that if one permits one’s self the luxury, so to speak, of participating in habitual rituals, even before one begins, said grace is a pure gift of God, which one would not receive were it not for the supernatural reality that one is predestined, although one cannot truly know that one is predestined. So, the perseverance of the ritual habit only brings such a soul closer to friendship with God. And, that is what is needed for salvation.

Interestingly, the opposite is also true, that without consenting to such will-to-rituals, following upon the gift of sanctifying grace, one will probably be doomed. Although such a soul would probably not even receive the will to instantiate such habits. I am not judging here; I am simply saying that God will not waste His free gifts of grace on those souls that will not infallibly use them in the future.

I think that if one finds the will to instantiate such habits - for whatever seemed to be the reason - one ought to proceed forward with them.

God bless,
jd

So - “Try it, you might like it” and “well pretend you like it, and you maybe you will someday”

Unless, of course, your damned and then it doesn’t matter anyway. You better try only people who are damned won’t try.

Is he talking to a pre-schooler?