P
PRmerger
Guest
Clearly he is not a proponent of “we can know God by faith alone”.
- Status
V
VeniEmmanuel
Guest
Without knowing the context of that quote, we cannot be certain whether he was or was not a proponent.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Agreed.
Pascal was a mathematician, and a Catholic philosopher. This is the context in which his quote should be understood.
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
This is a misquote - at least according to the site you’re quoting! It’s “2 extremes” - not “2 errors” - making it even more ambiguous…
Being such a big fan of the wager, I should actually read the guy really - some other quotes on the site indicate he may well be one of the warmer philosophers!
P
PRmerger
Guest
Errors. Extremes. Same concept, eh?
I
In_Spiration
Guest
hecd2,
I hope you’re still around. Here are some replies to your comments. I might try to summarize my general view on its own in another post. But for now…
Re: religious faith, there are degrees of it. After all, faith is considered one of the highest virtues. This is obviously much more than simply the mental/verbal affirmation of theism.
The EW correspondence axiom is whimsical and arbitrary unless one has established its preference as being rooted in something other than an undetermined free will. What makes the property of being preferred since birth non-arbitrary? Are your preferences themselves rationally based? But if they are, then perhaps your “axiom” is based in reason after all.
Why and how would that suggest these beliefs are in fact false?
Maybe it wouldn’t suggest any such thing. In that case, is anything “justified”? Wouldn’t it be more correct to just say: “**** happens”?
I hope you’re still around. Here are some replies to your comments. I might try to summarize my general view on its own in another post. But for now…
I meant to say that I’m not ready to reject the notion of belief as being simply a reliance on the truth of p without certainty in p’s truth, where “reliance” includes outward activity. Basically, mentally accepting p may just mean the choice of acting as if p is true regardless of knowing so, without being intellectually compelled. Belief may perhaps be characterized as the subject’s attempt to fill a perceived gap between truth and knowledge (in the attempt to attain the recognized potential benefits surrounding knowledge of some truth).
Re: religious faith, there are degrees of it. After all, faith is considered one of the highest virtues. This is obviously much more than simply the mental/verbal affirmation of theism.
Sense-data is meaningless until it’s interpreted. The senses don’t judge that there’s a gap between internal and external, nor do they make any metaphysical commitments. Further, your justifications here are mostly pragmatic, so I don’t see the necessary truth-conducive aspect.
The EW correspondence axiom is whimsical and arbitrary unless one has established its preference as being rooted in something other than an undetermined free will. What makes the property of being preferred since birth non-arbitrary? Are your preferences themselves rationally based? But if they are, then perhaps your “axiom” is based in reason after all.
This sounds like rational justification to me. As such, it also still seems incomplete. You’d need to establish that practical impossibility has truth-conducive implications, for one. Plus, “getting through the world” is vague; it appeals to a standard of success, which would arguably be contingent on the truth of an external world. If radical solipsism is true, for instance, then could one “fail” in any sense? Perhaps there is no real value. This is what I mean when I say pragmatism presupposes a justified end. It’s impossible to judge whether anything “works” without assuming a worthy goal as the standard. But this standard would likely stand/fall according to the truth (or else to the whims of some non-rationally chosen standard).
And Samuel Johnson “refuted” Berkeleyan idealism by kicking a stone. Though you may be justified, you haven’t p(name removed by moderator)ointed the source of that justification.
Suppose that all EW deniers (apparently!) struggle within this world and die. Or pretend you did decide to forever doubt your EW axiom and that, further, this caused you horrible suffering.
Why and how would that suggest these beliefs are in fact false?
Maybe it wouldn’t suggest any such thing. In that case, is anything “justified”? Wouldn’t it be more correct to just say: “**** happens”?
I
In_Spiration
Guest
T
Touchstone
Guest
hecd2 will speak for himself, but for my part, The Exodus has a solid answer right in his reply. When Pascal wonders what I’ve got to lose, I’m perplexed. I’ve just been asked to debase my mind, and he wonders what I have to lose???
The mind is something one has “in hand”, so to speak, or “in head”. It’s a real and current asset. What I have to lose is the debasement of that current asset for an intangible, inscrutable benefit.
There’s something beautifully self-selecting about the proposition; only the minds where debasement isn’t an issue will find it attractive.
If I came to you and proposed that without handing me $10, you’re at risk of having everything you care about taken away – money, kids, Barbra Streisand records (!), everything you value. Giving me $10, on the other hand, qualifies you for a $10MM payout 50 years from now. Trust me!
So that’s pretty high stakes. Complete loss, big winnings, all for a measly $10 (or suppose it’s just $1 or a dime, makes no difference). Think of what might be on the line here. What have you got to lose?
Why, ten bucks, that’s what. And any self-respect I might have in not showing myself a fool, a chump, a mark in accepting such a proposition.
$10 is a trifle compared to Pascal’s Wager. You gotta look in the mirror at some point, and ten bucks just doesn’t compare.
-TS
I
In_Spiration
Guest
I do see your point and your criticism may indeed be correct in the end. Mostly, I’m curious as to what sort of value, if any, a fundamentally pragmatic argument could potentially have. I also wonder whether we could ever derive any theoretical conclusions based on some recognition of an undeniable pragmatic value.
Plus, I’m not so much interested in a proper exegesis per se of Pascal; if any conceivable argument could be mounted to the same general result, that would be intriguing enough.
Pascal might deny that you’ve got any reason to call what you’ve got “a real and current asset.” We would have to have a set of criteria by which to judge something either valuable/pragmatic/successful or not. Let’s just suppose – for argument’s sake – that Pascal believes, and that it really is true, that if God doesn’t exist, then nothing is valuable or good. If we assume that nihilism is entailed by God’s non-existence (and I know you and hecd2 deny this, but entertain it for now), then ipso facto haven’t we necessarily eliminated all possible justification for accepting atheism?
At this point, it would seem the options are:
(1) Accept theism.
(a) God exists, and you’re possibly justified.
(b) God doesn’t exist, and you’re not justified.
(2) Don’t accept theism.
(a) God exists, and you’re not justified.
(b) God doesn’t exist, and you’re not justified.
2(a) seems to offer the only initial wiggle room for the PW denier here. It looks like the key point lies in whether we know, and whether it’s true, that if God doesn’t exist there’s no (basis for) meaning or purpose. To reject theism w/such knowledge would amount to saying this:
“I know that, logically speaking, if God doesn’t exist, then nothing is justified (as a result of all value being merely illusory). Also logically speaking, a proposition can only be legitimately justified if it’s true (or possibly true?). (Or: Also logically speaking, the acceptance of a proposition can only ever be justified if one at least believes it is true.) If I believe that God doesn’t exist, then I cannot believe or know I’m justified in such a belief – in fact, I could only ever have justification if I were wrong, so my acceptance of atheism is necessarily irrational and unjustified.”
From here, one might offer some “logical consequences” that don’t directly follow, but which would be consistent with the logic. E.g.:
(i) “While other arguments for God’s existence aren’t immediately compelling, we are immediately sure of the fact that justification in general is real or at least possible (and if it’s even possible, then God exists).”
(ii) “The fact our wills are effectively forced, or irresistibly disposed, to adopt certain beliefs is a sure sign that the object/content of such beliefs is true, or rooted somehow in truth. And it’s indeed impossible, not just practically beneficial, to believe our beliefs are false or unjustified. (If we cannot believe x, then x is false.)”
(iii) If someone’s ever given the option between affirming or denying x, then he will ultimately never decide unless he sees at least some benefit (some good/positive value) to affirmation/denial. If there is absolutely nothing for or against p, he will never believe in p or not-p. If we know that p is possibly justified, and that not-p is necessarily unjustifed, then we have some reason to push the belief threshold. In the absence of theoretical, truth-conducive reasons, practicality might step in?
I agree that there’s an apparent degree of intellectual debasement when one prioritizes self-interest over truth, but I’m not so sure this would be the case if one already established that any truth can’t be known as such. Also, if someone thinks that debasement is only possible/unjustified if and only if God exists, then he’d see nothing better than debasement in refusing the wager – in fact, he’d probably view nihilism as a worse outcome than any personal debasement.
To get to the point: would you be willing to grant the merits of PW, or anything like it, if it’s indeed true that one’s essentially choosing between possible meaning and utter absurdity? If so, would the argument be theoretical, or would we just be allowing a “pure faith”/pragmatic “wager” sort of thing? If the justification is pragmatic, what’s the basis and how do we know?
If anyone admits the “God or nihilism” dilemma, maybe that’s where this argument must lead. I, for one, think it’s a legit dilemma, but that would launch us into a lot of arguing about what’s necessary for a true, justified ground for any ultimately meaningful ethics/value system. And I’ll bet we’ve got differences on what’s satisfactory.
I
In_Spiration
Guest
You mean besides the supreme grace and timeless elegance of our generation’s most talented vocalist, right?
Barbra resents that. Low blow.
Certainly your thought experiment is wholly contingent on whether it’s true that I really am in the dilemma you propose. My potential justification would have to derive from whatever justification I have for believing you when you tell me that those are indeed my options. Not being so gullible, and always keen to spot greedy, two-timing shysters, I would declare you a liar and a thief before returning to my old life without worry. (Or if I lacked scruples, I’d gently advise you to work on a more effective scheme for that quick 10 bucks.)
R
Ranklyfrank
Guest
In Spiration
You either come to God in your own way on your own terms through experience and/or through grace. Pascal’s wager is to me like promoting marriage by kidnapping.
P.S. In Spiration, I really like your signature quote. Can we put it in every message frame, or have it flash on a banner before one can post?
Not only that, but we are not speaking here of a material consequence. We are talking about putting what is potentially the most intimate relationship in Love into the format of a wager. I can think of a number of films based on the idea of winning a romantic interest on the basis of a dare or a bet. What happens when s/he finds out the actual motivation? Not good.
You either come to God in your own way on your own terms through experience and/or through grace. Pascal’s wager is to me like promoting marriage by kidnapping.
P.S. In Spiration, I really like your signature quote. Can we put it in every message frame, or have it flash on a banner before one can post?
I
In_Spiration
Guest
L
LogisticsBranch
Guest
Hi Charlemagne.
First off, I’m not an atheist. As you know already from my previous messages to this topic, I don’t agree with Pascal’s wager or with what you have stated.B. Sury from the Indian Statistical Institute, Bangalore has written about Pascal. Here is an excerpt from the pdf.
“Pascal wrote the philosophical work Pensées towards the end of his life. This is a collection of his thoughts on human suffering and faith in God which he began in late 1656 and continued to work on during 1657 and 1658. This work contains ‘Pascal’s wager’ which claims to prove that belief in God is rational with the following argument: “Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us consider the two possibilities. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Hesitate not, then, to wager that He is.” In the seventh chapter of Pensées, he tries to apply his probability theory to argue that it is worthwhile to be religious. He argues that, as the value of eternal happiness must be infinite, then, even if the probability of a religious life ensuring eternal happiness be very small, still the expectation (which is measured by the product of the two) must be of sufficient magnitude to make it worthwhile to be religious! Pascal died at the age of 39 in intense pain after a malignant growth in his stomach spread to the brain.”
ias.ac.in/resonance/Jan2004/pdf/Jan2004AIB.pdf
It appears to me that Pascal began to think of God when he was in physical pain. I wouldn’t consider that to be a logical reason to believe in God. Physical pain can distort a person’s mind.
I support these three quotes from the LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II TO REVEREND GEORGE V. COYNE, S.J., DIRECTOR OF THE VATICAN OBSERVATORY on June 1, 1988:
- “The unity we perceive in creation on the basis of our faith in Jesus Christ as Lord of the universe, and the correlative unity for which we strive in our human communities, seems to be reflected and even reinforced in what contemporary science is revealing to us. As we behold the incredible development of scientific research we detect an underlying movement towards the discovery of levels of law and process which unify created reality and which at the same time have given rise to the vast diversity of structures and organisms which constitute the physical and biological, and even the psychological and sociological, worlds.”
- “Both the Church and the scientific community are faced with such inescapable alternatives. We shall make our choices much better of we live in a collaborative interaction in which we are called continually to be more. Only a dynamic relationship between theology and science can reveal those limits which support the integrity of either discipline, so that theology does not profess a pseudo-science and science does not become an unconscious theology. Our knowledge of each other can lead us to be more authentically ourselves.”
- “The Church does not propose that science should become religion or religion science.”
R
Ranklyfrank
Guest
How come most of the actors/actresses I like are from Canada?
Yes, kind of.
No matter what, Love is the underlying Principle. That story goes on, as does ours. I am most certainly not an atheist or agnostic. And that is why, despite my very critical stance on religion, and because of it, that I claim that Pascal’s wager is flushable.
A
Anselm33
Guest
Scanning all the posts (not thoroughly, I’ll have to admit) I don’t think anyone has got the point of Pascal’s argument or read the material in Pensees (#233, pp 65-69, Dover edition of the Trotter translation) where it was first put forth. (all quotes from there.)
Point 1) Pascal thought that God being infinite, could not be known or proven to exist by reason:
However one can use modern decision analysis, the principle of “mini-max regret” to show that the argument is sound. (see facebook.com/notes/magis-center-of-reason-and-faith/the-pearl-of-great-pricepascals-wager-revisited/17
Pascal’s wager is addressed to the prudent agnostic, and even if this agnostic doesn’t believe at first, faith will come (i.e. as a catechetical priest once told me, you can fake it till you make it).
Point 1) Pascal thought that God being infinite, could not be known or proven to exist by reason:
Point 2) We can know God by faith; after a carriage accident Pascal had a mystical experience, wrote about his beatific vision in a beautiful paean that was sewn into whatever coat he happened to be wearing.
This is what Pascal wants us to believe: that there is an afterlife, and its benefits are infinite. Whatever is lost by believing, even if there were no God, is finite, whereas that which is gained, if there is a God, is infinite:
There is a mathematical problem with this analysis however. Introducing an infinite reward introduces paradoxes (e.g. like the St. Petersburg paradox), so it’s not a good probability argument after all.
However one can use modern decision analysis, the principle of “mini-max regret” to show that the argument is sound. (see facebook.com/notes/magis-center-of-reason-and-faith/the-pearl-of-great-pricepascals-wager-revisited/17
Pascal’s wager is addressed to the prudent agnostic, and even if this agnostic doesn’t believe at first, faith will come (i.e. as a catechetical priest once told me, you can fake it till you make it).
and
anselm
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
Not necessarily! Some people like extremes… extremists, for exampleErrors. Extremes. Same concept, eh?
P
PRmerger
Guest
True. Non sequitor, but true enough.Not necessarily! Some people like extremes… extremists, for example
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
Interesting… this is actually subtley different to what I’ve been arguing all these years, and probably less cynical!
My argument was always roughly, that if there is no afterlife, the nullity of all consciousness upon death would render all our actions during life futile, both for ourselves and others. Only if there is eternal consciousness is purposeful life possible, and human experience of the possibility of the same is overwhelmingly tied into, and dependent upon, God, so therefore we should assume God is real in order to have meaningful purpose to our lives…
So are you saying this is this not quite what Pascal was arguing?
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
We still need the context before we know whether it follows! Did anyone ever dig it up?
A
atheistgirl
Guest
It’s a low cheap tactic and Im pretty sure not likely to fool God if He turns out to be there
- Status