Pascal's Wager Argument

[KostyaJMJ]

I agree with most of your post, but that doesn’t follow. In post #52 I argue God may exist and Catholics may be treated worse by him than unbelievers. And if God doesn’t exist, atheists come out ahead.

I would assume that believing in a God that punishes believers in organized religion would switch you from atheist to deist.

You would also have to discount remote or absurd possibilities as well as religions that don’t yet exist. For example we wouldn’t consider that there is an Invisible Pink Unicorn that grinds believers under her hooves for all eternity.

The other flaw. You may be able to convince me it’s in my best interest to believe the Earth is the center of the solar system–eg, if I say otherwise the church may burn me at the stake, but you can’t make me actually believe it.

It all depends on what you mean by believe. If you simply mean following a set rules and making the right noises at worship then of course you can believe anything you please.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

I would assume that believing in a God that punishes believers in organized religion would switch you from atheist to deist.

lol

It all depends on what you mean by believe. If you simply mean following a set rules and making the right noises at worship then of course you can believe anything you please.

Exactly. I’ve gone through the motions of church before. I would never call myself a believer.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

LifeIsAbsurd
*
And if God doesn’t exist, atheists come out ahead.*

But you can’t be certain God does not exist. We have to keep coming back to this, don’t we? As an atheist you are certain that God (the Catholic God or any other god) does not exist, yet you cannot offer one iota of evidence to prove it.

So if God *does *exist, and he is the Catholic God or any other God, does the atheist still come out ahead? If so, on what grounds?

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Blaise Pascal, French mathematician, physicist, theologian and philosopher devised the Wager Argument. The argument resulted from his conclusion that reason was unreliable either to prove or disprove the existence of God, and that therefore believing in God must be an act of the will resulting from the decision to act in the best interest of the self.

Hi Charlemagne. Maurizio Paciaroni recently wrote about Pascal:

Front Neurol Neurosci. 2010 ;27 :160-167 20375529 Visual Experiences of Blaise Pascal.
[My paper] Maurizio Paciaroni

Stroke Unit and Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy.
The writings of Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), mathematician, physicist, and theologian, are often thought of as an ideal example of classical French prose. In fact, Pascal’s scientific contributions include the principle of hydrostatics, known as Pascal’s Law. In mathematics, he helped develop the probability theory and also made significant contributions to the realization of infinite series and the geometry of curves. He is also considered one of the most important French philosophers principally due to his book entitled ‘Pensées’. Pascal had a religious conversion in the 1650s and following this he devoted himself more to religion than science. There is evidence that Pascal suffered from visual migraines with recurring headaches, episodes of blindness in half of his visual field, zigzag, fortification spectra, and other visual hallucinations. It is believed that the migraine aura experiences might have acted as a source of inspiration for Pascal’s philosophical reflections. Pascal’s sudden religious conversion, probably the most decisive moment in Pascal’s personal life, during the night of the 23rd to 24th of November 1654, was accompanied by a lighted vision which he interpreted as fire which brought him the total conviction of God’s ‘reality and presence’. This experience may have been based on the effects of a migraine aura attack. In fact, this spiritual experience led him to dedicate the rest of his life to religious and philosophical interests.
lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:20375529

Science helps philosophy and theology to better understand the human being. Love, honesty and compassion make us unique. This unique human capacity extends our power to do good beyond the family. Close and enduring friendships with religious and non-religious (atheists) which make us important to others, naturally enhance our sense of significance. True friends value and accept us as we really are and allow us to return this grace. Contributions of love and support in a friend’s life, enhance our sense of personal significance as well, and bring deeper meaning to our lives so thinkth me.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

This experience may have been based on the effects of a migraine aura attack.

Thomas Jefferson also had migraine headaches, but they didn’t make him a Catholic.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

LifeIsAbsurd
And if God doesn’t exist, atheists come out ahead.

We have to keep coming back to this, don’t we? As an atheist you are certain that God (the Catholic God or any other god) does not exist, yet you cannot offer one iota of evidence to prove it.

I have no idea what you’re talking about.

As an atheist you are certain that God (the Catholic God or any other god) does not exist

First, atheism does not require being certain that God does not exist. Atheism only requires not believing “God exists”.

Second, I’ve never claimed to be certain “God does not exist.”, and my religion is stated as Agnostic Atheist, so it’s certainly not true that we keep coming back to that point.

Third, this thread is about Pascal’s Wager, an attempt at a logical argument for why we should believe in God even if we’re unsure about his existance. When discussing such an argument, it is folly to being by assuming God exists.

I am open to honest discussion. If you wish to construct a strawman me to argue against have at it and enjoy.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

LifeIsAbsurd

Exactly. I’ve gone through the motions of church before. I would never call myself a believer.

Apparently having only gone through the motions, you are hardly in a position to argue that the atheist comes out ahead. I’ve never understood this argument that the atheist come out ahead if there is no God. Is it that you think sinning with impunity somehow puts you ahead of people who try to live a virtuous life?

This is the atheist argument of the Marquis de Sade, who is hardly anyone I would consider to be “ahead” of me.
*
Third, this thread is about Pascal’s Wager, an attempt at a logical argument for why we should believe in God even if we’re unsure about his existance. When discussing such an argument, it is folly to being by assuming God exists. *

And why isn’t it just as much, or more of a folly, to assume that God does not exist?

Whether you are an atheist or an agnostic is irrelevant. In either case you life as though God does not exist. I don’t hear any agnostics speaking up for God.

First, atheism does not require being certain that God does not exist. Atheism only requires not believing “God exists”.

Silly putty logic!

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Do some research people!

Diabetes Technol Ther. 2010 Jun;12 Suppl 1:S43-50.

1. Pascal’s wager: combining continuous glucose monitoring and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion.
   Kerr D, Olateju T.

Centre of Postgraduate Medical Research and Education, Bournemouth Diabetes and Endocrine Centre, Royal Bournemouth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Bournemouth, UK.
Abstract
Pascal’s Wager is a suggestion posed by the French Philosopher, Blaise Pascal, that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager that God exists because he or she has everything to gain and nothing to lose. In the area of consideration here, the optimum experimental trial of the combined use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and real-time continuous glucose monitoring in free-living individuals with type 1 diabetes providing rock-solid evidence of clinical benefit has not been performed. Nevertheless, there is considerable enthusiasm for combining the technologies among healthcare professionals, patients, and manufacturers based on the belief that this approach to diabetes care must be beneficial beyond the available evidence (i.e., reason).
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=20515306&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

1. N Engl J Med.
   1975 Oct 23;293(17):853-7.

Pascal’s wager and the hanging of crepe.
Siegler M.

Abstract
Hanging of crepe refers to one type of strategy employed by physicians in communicating prognoses to families of critically ill patients. This approach offers the bleakest, most pessimistic prediction of the patient’s outcome, presumably in an effort to lessen the family’s suffering if the patient dies of his illness. Certain similarities exist between this technic and that used by Pascal, the 17th-century philosopher, in formulating his wager on the belief in God, in that both attempt to develop “no-lose” strategies, in which chances for “winning” are maximized. A detailed analysis of these strategies indicates that neither is truly “no-lose,” and that both contain inherent disadvantages. Prognostication, an alternative approach to physician-family communication, appears to be strategically and morally superior to the hanging-of-crepe strategy.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=1177976&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

p.s. I love Jesus. Everything I know about God is a result from me loving Jesus.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

p.s. I love Jesus. Everything I know about God is a result from me loving Jesus.

To love him is to know him, and the more you know him, the more you love him.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

p.s. I love Jesus. Everything I know about God is a result from me loving Jesus.

To love him is to know him, and the more you know him, the more you love him.

No, I loved him before I knew all about him. I was three years old when I fell in love with him. My feelings for him have not changed.

 

[teachccd]

And if God doesn’t exist, atheists come out ahead.

And how would you ever know that you “won”?

The other flaw. You may be able to convince me it’s in my best interest to believe the Earth is the center of the solar system–eg, if I say otherwise the church may burn me at the stake, but you can’t make me actually believe it.

Sticks and stones…

 

[PRmerger]

Sometimes.

And when waiting in line is NOT pleasurable for you, do you simply walk up to the first person in line and tell her to get out of your way?

To finish off your list, I’ve commited no murders nor robberies this week, and gave away a little over $5,000.

This very well could be the widow’s pence that Jesus talked so highly of!

Incidentally, have you ever gotten up in the middle of the night to feed a baby?

If you’re not a parent, can you project what you would do?

(Keep in mind your proposal about Catholics having “to avoid doing some things they otherwise would enjoy.”)

 

[PRmerger]

No.

Ah, so even you, an atheist/agnostic “have to avoid doing some things they otherwise would enjoy” (like eating whatever and whenever you want, even if it belongs to another, buying whatever you feel will make you happy…)

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

Ah, so even you, an atheist/agnostic “have to avoid doing some things they otherwise would enjoy” (like eating whatever and whenever you want, even if it belongs to another, buying whatever you feel will make you happy…)

I abstain from eating three slices of cheesecake at a time because I would rather enjoy a few bites, be able to snowboard, and not have any health issues. I aim to maximize my lifetime happiness, not the moment’s pleasure.

Catholics have many additional limitations beyond mine that don’t lead to long-term happiness in this world. As an example, on another forum here two married couples suffering “like Jesus” because they desire to be intimate, but they’re not permitted to do so if their encounters aren’t ‘open to life’. Yes, if there is no Catholic God, they’ve suffered for nothing. While we atheists and agnostics are able to enjoy sexual fulfilment and a closer bond with our spouse. Sex has unitive value (eg, “make-up sex”) beyond the physical pleasure that it brings. And please realize this is just a single example–it’s not all about sex.

And when waiting in line is NOT pleasurable for you, do you simply walk up to the first person in line and tell her to get out of your way?

It’s rare I wait in line such as the one you described. I hire others to do that for me. The one exception is the DMV, but they use a ‘ticket’ system. If I walk up to a window without a ticket they’ll send me away so there’s no point in doing that.

 

[PRmerger]

I abstain from eating three slices of cheesecake at a time because I would rather enjoy a few bites, be able to snowboard, and not have any health issues.** I aim to maximize my lifetime happiness, not my pleasure at any one particular moment.**

This is exactly the Catholic paradigm, LifeIsAbsurd!

Catholics have many limitations that don’t lead to long-term happiness in this world.

This is categorically untrue.

The most joyful people in the world are the saints.

And, I might add, the most depressed people in this world are the secularists. :sad_yes:

 

[LogisticsBranch]

I abstain from eating three slices of cheesecake at a time because I would rather enjoy a few bites, be able to snowboard, and not have any health issues. I aim to maximize my lifetime happiness, not the moment’s pleasure.

Catholics have many additional limitations beyond mine that don’t lead to long-term happiness in this world. As an example, on another forum here two married couples suffering “like Jesus” because they desire to be intimate, but they’re not permitted to do so if their encounters aren’t ‘open to life’. Yes, if there is no Catholic God, they’ve suffered for nothing. While we atheists and agnostics are able to enjoy sexual fulfilment and a closer bond with our spouse. Sex has unitive value (eg, “make-up sex”) beyond the physical pleasure that it brings. And please realize this is just a single example–it’s not all about sex.

Please don’t make such silly generalizations about Catholics, atheists, and agnostics. You surely don’t have a handle on their sex life! Obviously, from your statement above you know every Catholic, atheist, and agnostic on this planet.

You may wish to review what I posted on the previous page and tell me what you think.

 

[PRmerger]

As an example, on another forum here two married couples suffering “like Jesus” because they desire to be intimate, but they’re not permitted to do so if their encounters aren’t ‘open to life’. Yes, if there is no Catholic God, they’ve suffered for nothing. While we atheists and agnostics are able to enjoy sexual fulfilment and a closer bond with our spouse. Sex has unitive value (eg, “make-up sex”) beyond the physical pleasure that it brings. And please realize this is just a single example–it’s not all about sex.

So the Sex in the City paradigm? Those that can have sex whenever and wherever they want are the happiest?

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

This is exactly the Catholic paradigm, LifeIsAbsurd!
And, I might add, the most depressed people in this world are the secularists. :sad_yes:

I’m not depressed at all. I’m cautiously optimistic! And you didn’t directly address my example, which involved spouses not miscellaneous random people.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s rare I wait in line such as the one you described. I hire others to do that for me.

LOL! As if that were even possible in this society.

I have no doubt that you have hired someone to do this for you. At times.

But you clearly in this life have waited in many a line. Quite.

And in this you yourself fall into the category to which you object: being one of those who “have to avoid doing some things they otherwise would enjoy”

 

[tm21]

Quote:
Yes, but this essay hardly supports the concept of willing to believe *in the absence of evidence, reasonable extrapolation of evidence or reason to accept authority, *none of which are relevant to Pascal’s argument.
Alec Un-quote

Pascal’s wager did not assume there was no evidence of heaven or hell, but that there could never be perfect evidence. Therefore a rational decision needs to be made. Pascal gave the example of a man considering marriage. The man doesn’t have perfect evidence of what his future wife will be like (only what she is now). If he waits for perfect evidence, he will never marry…either the woman will get tired of waiting or they both will die. Therefore, his demand for perfect evidence of married life was in fact a decision to never marry.