Pascal's Wager Argument

[Ranklyfrank]

Your horse is dead, CII; please stop.

 

[PRmerger]

Whether you have proof is very relevant. You are very good at demanding proof for the yea and denying the need to prove nay.

This, CII, is a very trenchant point. One that ought not be dismissed.

If proof is demanded for one argument, ought not proof be demanded for the counter?

 

[kbachler]

It’s an appalling argument. You cannot genuinely believe in a proposition only by an act of will.

Actually, we do so all the time. As science advanced past relativity and quantum electrodynamics, it became clear that our concept of “knowing” needed to change. There is a wonderful book called “Personal Knowledge” by Polyani which addresses this issue. It is an understanding of knowledge based on belief and (in a sense) wagers.

For example, do we truly know that the sun will rise and there will be a tomorrow? We do not. We act all the time as though we know there will be, but the Earth could end tonite, from a comet or meteor strike, or a gamma ray burst or a mini-black hole whizzing through our solar system. We don’t TRULY know that there will be a tomorrow for earth.

That is an ultra simple example when we begin to understand how the universe works on a subatomic level. EVERYTHING is a probability, and nothing is certainty. What happens is the result of probabilistic outcomes. There REALLY IS a chance that in the next instant that you could, through quantum mechanical processes, potentially find yourself in another time, or another part of the universe. But the odds of it happening are so small that maybe it would happen to one being, one time, in the entire universe during the entire lifetime of the universe.

MANY of the things that we choose to believe, particularly when we understand things, is PRECISELY an act of will.

It is due to this knowledge that I don’t believe in blind faith. Blind faith, to me, is not faith at all. It’s mysticism. Astrologers have blind faith. Theoretical physicists must still have faith - but it is no longer blind.

 

[kbachler]

This is absolutely untrue, Rightlyfrank.

Proof for God’s existence by reason or intellect abounds in Christianity. From the very first centuries. See Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Pascal…

There is no such philosophic proof of God. If there were, the world would be a different place.

There are arguments for His existence. ALL of the “proofs” have flaws.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Actually, we do so all the time. As science advanced past relativity and quantum electrodynamics, it became clear that our concept of “knowing” needed to change. There is a wonderful book called “Personal Knowledge” by Polyani which addresses this issue. It is an understanding of knowledge based on belief and (in a sense) wagers.

For example, do we truly know that the sun will rise and there will be a tomorrow? We do not. We act all the time as though we know there will be, but the Earth could end tonite, from a comet or meteor strike, or a gamma ray burst or a mini-black hole whizzing through our solar system. We don’t TRULY know that there will be a tomorrow for earth.

That is an ultra simple example when we begin to understand how the universe works on a subatomic level. EVERYTHING is a probability, and nothing is certainty. What happens is the result of probabilistic outcomes. There REALLY IS a chance that in the next instant that you could, through quantum mechanical processes, potentially find yourself in another time, or another part of the universe. But the odds of it happening are so small that maybe it would happen to one being, one time, in the entire universe during the entire lifetime of the universe.

MANY of the things that we choose to believe, particularly when we understand things, is PRECISELY an act of will.

It is due to this knowledge that I don’t believe in blind faith. Blind faith, to me, is not faith at all. It’s mysticism. Astrologers have blind faith. Theoretical physicists must still have faith - but it is no longer blind.

You’re right, we cannot know that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that we will be in the year 2011 in 5 minutes, or that we will be on Earth for the rest of today. I don’t see how that establishes that belief is an act of will.

 

[j1akey]

Do you demand proofs to this same degree for other areas in your life? That is, do you have faith that the pilot flying your aircraft is licensed? Or do you demand, prior to stepping onto the plane, that he show it to you? And if he provides the license, do you call the agency to confirm? And then do you check that his education is authentic? Did he actually graduate from Notre Dame–and if so, what was his GPA?

See what I’m getting at?

I understand what you’re trying to get at here but this isn’t really the same thing. With an airline pilot I at least have the option of going through these steps and getting this information. Probably not the minute I step on the plane but the information would be available if I wanted to spend the time looking for it.

 

[grannymh]

You’re right, we cannot know that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that we will be in the year 2011 in 5 minutes, or that we will be on Earth for the rest of today. I don’t see how that establishes that belief is an act of will.

An act of the will means that one freely chooses to believe, period. The will is already established as part of human nature and that is all that is required.

 

[Shredderbeam]

An act of the will means that one freely chooses to believe, period. The will is already established as part of human nature and that is all that is required.

kbachler’s argument was that we all hold certain basic beliefs, even though we cannot know them to be true with 100% certainty. He then argues that since we believe them anyway, we must have made a conscious decision to believe, though I dispute this.

 

[grannymh]

kbachler’s argument was that we all hold certain basic beliefs, even though we cannot know them to be true with 100% certainty. He then argues that since we believe them anyway, we must have made a conscious decision to believe, though I dispute this.

Understood. However, I went straight to the heart of the argument which is the existence of the will.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Understood. However, I went straight to the heart of the argument which is the existence of the will.

All right, so let’s suppose that the will exists. I believe that it does, I can decide to pick up my cup of tea or push my cat off my lap. I cannot, however, decide to believe something and then hold that belief genuinely.

 

[grannymh]

All right, so let’s suppose that the will exists. I believe that it does, I can decide to pick up my cup of tea or push my cat off my lap. I cannot, however, decide to believe something and then hold that belief genuinely.

Pick up, push, believe are all actions decided by the will. Pick up and push need one’s anatomy to carry out the decision. Just because believing or loving for example are different than pick up or push does not mean they don’t exist. Just as you can love genuinely, you can also believe genuinely.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Pick up, push, believe are all actions decided by the will. Pick up and push need one’s anatomy to carry out the decision. Just because believing or loving for example are different than pick up or push does not mean they don’t exist. Just as you can love genuinely, you can also believe genuinely.

I can believe genuinely, but I cannot choose to believe genuinely. There seems to be something in the human mind that doesn’t like to believe false things. For example, I can attempt to believe that my door is malevolent and enjoys it when I stub my toe against it, but I fail. No matter how hard I try, I cannot make myself believe this.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

…Can you see where I am trying to go? If the universe speaks of a divine Creator and in a sense images the power of the Creator, than we could image (verb) the “person” of God. But this does not make us gods in any way. It does indicate a relationship of Creator to the created human person. It is this sense of relationship which, in my humble opinion, demonstrates that God is a personal God.

Blessings,
granny

The universe sings of the power of its Creator.

Hi Grannymh,

My Mentor used to sign his letters and notes: “Man is a Song.”

My admiration of your perceptive and intellectual faculties continues to be well warranted. You have touched on and sounded much that is of great importance. Forgive me for not answering immediately, but I wish to give your statement the attention it deserves, and right now I need to go to Mom’s and do her meds. We may not completely agree in the end, but it looks like we can examine some vital talking points.

Thanks for your post!

RF

 

[grannymh]

I can believe genuinely, but I cannot choose to believe genuinely. There seems to be something in the human mind that doesn’t like to believe false things. For example, I can attempt to believe that my door is malevolent and enjoys it when I stub my toe against it, but I fail. No matter how hard I try, I cannot make myself believe this.

Understood.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Ranklyfrank
*
First it would behoove us to discover if this alleged God is a “Person” or something else.*

It would also behoove us to discover why God should be impersonal rather than personal. This you have not shown. The advantage of a personal God is that we want to connect with such a God and be moved in our lives by such a God. How many people desire to connect with, or desire to be moved, by an impersonal God? Might as well be no God at all.

All that your statement tells me is that you are ignorant of the nature and philosophy of non dulaism. But that is fixable. If you want to do that, I can send you a short and useful bibliography.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

It seems that you have an impoverished understanding of analogies. There is no one-to-one correspondence between analogs.

So we share something in common at least, and my analogy holds. Lovely stories, by the way!

 

[Ranklyfrank]

The posts are flying like owls. Yes, I am reading Harry Potter.

My understanding of experiential learning is probably different from most posters; thus I would like to know what you mean by “experientially”. If it is not personal, I would like to know what you meant by understanding God as the Sun. A priest friend loved to liken God to the sun. Even to the point of Son [Jesus Christ] as a pun.

Blessings,
granny

Seems to me I recall something from St. Francis of Assisi called “Brother Sun, Sister Moon?”

 

[kbachler]

You’re right, we cannot know that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that we will be in the year 2011 in 5 minutes, or that we will be on Earth for the rest of today. I don’t see how that establishes that belief is an act of will.

Because, since we don’t KNOW such things, we must choose to believe them or not.

SOME of this choice is essentially hard-wired, programmed through things like evolution. We don’t CHOOSE to believe that we must get out of the way of the large moving object, we just know that we must to survive. Those that did otherwise had fewer offspring.

But SOME of this choice is through will. When we have a preponderance of evidence for a scientific theory, for example, we choose to believe it, or not to.

Thus, some people used to choose to believe that electricity could leak of their outlets onto the floor. Some people choose to believe in a flat Earth, or geocentrism or astrology.

OR we can work to understand the preponderance of evidence, the reasons for it, the way the “system” works in a whole, its simplicity, how it works with other things and choose to believe in evolution, relativity, quantum electrodynamics, etc.

For me, my belief is God is based on understanding arguments that for me constitute evidence. I know that for some people this wouldn’t be the case. But for me, its an act of will. For it to be less than that would reduce the belief to mysticism, and I believe our story is better than astrology, geocentrism or a flat earth.

As an extreme example, when one is being persecuted, continuing the belief is an act of will.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Franklyrank

So I guess you have chosen to ignore post # 399?

 

[PRmerger]

There is no such philosophic proof of God. If there were, the world would be a different place.

There are arguments for His existence. ALL of the “proofs” have flaws.

I disagree completely.

While it’s true there are no scientific proofs for God’s existence, there are indeed philosophic *proofs *of same.